Oral Answers to Questions

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Smoke Alarms

Philip Hollobone: What her estimate is of the percentage of residential dwellings fitted with at least one smoke alarm in (a) Kettering, (b) Northamptonshire and (c) England.

Parmjit Dhanda: Ownership of smoke alarms in England now stands at 80 per cent. of households and we are seeking to raise it further as those without alarms are often in those groups who are most at risk from fire.
	Information on smoke alarm ownership in Kettering and Northamptonshire is not held centrally. However, 82 per cent. of households in the east midlands region own one or more smoke alarms.

Philip Hollobone: Last year, in Northamptonshire there were fires in 463 homes, 247 of which did not have smoke alarms fitted. Will the Under-Secretary congratulate the  Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph, which has launched a campaign to get smoke alarms fitted in residential homes, and ensure that those that are fitted work? What steps are the Government undertaking to spread the message that those who do not have a smoke alarm are twice as likely to die in the event of fire?

Parmjit Dhanda: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He is right that the  Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph is running a good, strong local campaign. Eighty per cent. of homes have smoke alarms, but people are twice as likely to die in a house fire if they do not have a smoke alarm. In one third of cases, there is no working battery in a smoke alarm, so we are running a high-profile campaign with the actress Julie Walters's television programme. It is a hard-hitting campaign to ensure that people check their smoke alarms on a weekly basis. We also pump-primed the fire and rescue service with £25 million over four years. That money has been used to ensure that 1.9 million smoke alarms nationally have been fitted and I think that that is making a huge difference across the country.

Celia Barlow: I have been delighted to be involved in my hon. Friend's campaign on smoke alarms. Has he also considered the huge importance of sprinklers? Is he prepared to consider making mandatory the installation of fire sprinklers in residential homes, especially in care homes for the elderly and for children?

Parmjit Dhanda: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for her ongoing campaign for her constituency—we have done some work together on that. We have made it a requirement for all new care homes to have sprinkler systems when there is more than one bed in a location. If there is only a single bed, it is a requirement to have a sprinkler or a system whereby there is a smoke alarm and a door-shutting mechanism so that fire cannot spread. Through building regulations, we have also introduced a requirement for fire sprinklers for buildings of, I believe, over 30 m and for warehouse-style buildings above a certain size and height.

Maria Miller: Some alarms can now also detect carbon monoxide, which is responsible for the death of 30 to 40 people every year in this country. There are concerns that many more problems go undiagnosed. Will the Under-Secretary join me in urging the use of devices that can detect not only smoke but carbon monoxide?

Parmjit Dhanda: I am happy to do that. I believe that Cleveland in particular has provided a strong local service, and it is part of the statutory duty to go out and ensure that community fire safety work is taking place throughout the country. Cleveland and many other fire and rescue authorities focus on carbon monoxide, whereas others focus on smoke alarms. Other fire rescue services have done completely different things—for example, in one area, chip fat fryers are being replaced with safer versions so that there are fewer kitchen fires. I therefore congratulate the hon. Lady on supporting the carbon monoxide campaign, and I know that fire and rescue authorities up and down the land are taking a closer look at it.

David Taylor: The Under-Secretary knows that a good proportion of domestic fires, and the injuries and deaths that go with them, are associated with discarded smoking materials. What steps have the Government taken to pursue the development and sale of reduced ignition propensity cigarettes of the sort that Canada and some states of the United States of America require? They need to be actively smoked, otherwise bars along the length of the cigarettes mean that they go out. Are not they a safety device, and why are we not moving along that path more rapidly?

Parmjit Dhanda: We are working with our partners in the European Union on cigarettes that are less liable to cause house fires, through my chief fire adviser, Sir Ken Knight, who has been actively engaged on the issue. I am sure that my hon. Friend will see some of that work come to fruition in the coming months, as we work with our partners on guidance to help change the system, both here and across the continent.

Simon Burns: Does the Minister agree that one of the most effective ways of increasing the percentage of domestic dwellings fitted with fire alarms in England is through the work that the fire services do in providing people with free advice on the use and installation of fire alarms? In that respect, will he join me in praising Essex fire service for the tremendous work that it does by increasing awareness of safety and installing free fire alarms in domestic dwellings?

Parmjit Dhanda: I am very happy to congratulate Essex fire and rescue service on the work that it is doing. Such work is being done throughout the land. As I have said, 1.9 million smoke alarms have been fitted through the £25 million that my Department has provided between 2004 and 2008. Some 1.5 million home fire risk checks have been performed by fire and rescue services throughout the country. Fire and rescue services are finding that ensuring that people are alerted to fire risks in the first place not only is effective in saving lives—we now have the lowest number of fire deaths since 1959—but results in savings, because it means that fire appliances and crews are called out less and less often to put out fires.

Overcrowded Accommodation

Dari Taylor: What assessment she has made of the capacity of the private rented sector to contribute to a reduction in the number of families in overcrowded accommodation.

Caroline Flint: Working with local authorities has shown that providing access to larger properties in the private rented sector can be a positive solution to the problem of overcrowding in some circumstances. We will shortly be publishing good practice guidance on the Department's website demonstrating the practical solutions that local authorities can take—and which some are taking—to address the problem of overcrowding.

Dari Taylor: I am very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's response. Will she outline the review of the private rented sector that Julie Rugg is undertaking and will she also tell the House when we will receive information on how she sees larger houses being utilised to manage overcrowding?

Caroline Flint: The review of the private rented sector that Julie Rugg is undertaking will report in October and is focusing on four key themes: how to create an accessible private rented sector; security of tenure for tenants; the provision of safe and decent homes; and improving landlord-tenant relations. Over the past few months, I have had a number of conversations with colleagues in the House, local authority leaders and others about the question of whether, if it comes up to standard, the private rented sector could be part of a family of providers, as well as about tackling houses in multiple occupation and overcrowding. I hope that that will all feed into the housing reform Green Paper that the Prime Minister announced will be forthcoming at the end of this year.

Robert Goodwill: Has it dawned on the Minister that the move to pay housing benefit directly to tenants rather than to landlords for new tenancies will result in an increase in evictions and a reluctance among private landlords to let their houses to people on benefit?

Caroline Flint: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a somewhat patronising attitude towards tenants. I understand that the driver for the change was about ensuring that those renting in the private sector who have traditionally been in receipt of housing benefit can take more responsibility for finding their housing and assume more financial responsibility, too. The change is about developing a more independent approach, rather than a dependent approach. I also understand—I am sure that colleagues from the Department for Work and Pensions will be happy to provide him with information on this—that safeguards are in place, particularly for vulnerable tenants, to ensure that rents are paid and, where appropriate, that adequate and suitable support is given either by Jobcentre Plus or by local authorities, or by charitable organisations working with particular groups of vulnerable people.

Phyllis Starkey: Milton Keynes council is using the private rented sector to try to provide more suitable accommodation for many of the people on its waiting list and those in overcrowded accommodation. However, does the Minister accept that a major disincentive for council tenants to move to the private sector is the security—or rather, the insecurity—of tenure in the private sector? Will she ensure that the review considers that issue seriously?

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I have outlined, security of tenure is one of the issues that Julie Rugg and her colleagues are addressing. For people to feel safe and comfortable about alternative options, particularly where children are involved, they want to be assured that if accommodation is provided in the private rented sector, they can make the appropriate arrangements for schools, doctors and, I hope, employment, too. I hope that my hon. Friend and colleagues on both sides of the House will engage and make their views known to Julie in her review.

Lindsay Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the private sector can take advantage of the housing market because people cannot afford to buy their own properties, which is driving up rents in the private sector? Has the time not come for more investment in the public sector, because it is the people in that sector who can really deal with the housing problem? Can we make more houses available through the public sector?

Caroline Flint: It is absolutely the case, as my hon. Friend has outlined, that although we seek to engage with positive landlords in the private rented sector and to tackle landlords' bad practices, the issue is also about building more affordable homes for low-cost ownership and, importantly, for rent. That is why we are investing more than £8 billion in the next few years. We want to increase the number of homes being built and those that are available for social rent. As I have said to colleagues across the House, MPs play an important role in making sure that local authority bids for growth points or housing supply targets are underpinned by an understanding of the housing needs of those communities and the priority that should be given to those who need homes for social rent. As MPs, we can play an important role in ensuring that what is talked about locally is delivered on the ground.

Council Tax

Martin Horwood: If she will consider the merits of abolishing council tax.

Hazel Blears: The Government have no plans to abolish council tax. We agree with Sir Michael Lyons, who concluded in his independent report on the future of local government that council tax is basically sound and should be retained.

Martin Horwood: Sir Michael Lyons also said, at paragraph 7.239:
	"I am satisfied that a local income tax could be feasible...and could viably replace all or part of council tax".
	Given that the council tax is being used in Gloucestershire even to top up flood-relief spending, and that the poorest households still pay 7 per cent. of their income in council tax, compared with just 2 per cent. for the richest, is not it time to perform another tax U-turn for the lowest paid?

Hazel Blears: Sir Michael Lyons also looked, very properly in my view, at the implications of moving either to full or local income tax. If we went to full income tax, there would be a rise of 7.7p in the pound, and if we went to a local income tax that covered only half of council tax, that would add 4p to the basic rate of income tax. I do not think that families want to pay such amounts.

Alan Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a local income tax were levied instead of council tax, practically it could only be levied nationally and assigned locally? That would make the word "local" in local income tax rather redundant.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend expresses himself with great knowledge, as usual. He is a bit of an expert on these matters. I understand that if we were to have a local income tax, not only would it have to be administered nationally, but the cost for business would be absolutely enormous. The latest estimate is that the administrative costs would be £100 million, particularly affecting small businesses.

Gregory Campbell: I do not know whether there is a discount for council tax payers in England for senior citizens aged over 70 who live alone, but if not, will the Minister consider introducing a scheme similar to the one introduced in Northern Ireland by my colleague the Finance Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)? Such a scheme would be very productive in targeting senior citizens who live alone and who are at the lower end of the income scale.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a general discount of 25 per cent. for people who live alone. Clearly, local authorities have discretion regarding other adjustments that they would like to make. A number of local authorities have given discounts to particular sections of the community, so that option is open to local authorities.

Peter Soulsby: I welcome the Government's commitment to keeping a property-based council tax at the heart of local government finance, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that local councils should be able to raise finance from a range of sources other than a property-based council tax? Does she agree that it is particularly important that a higher proportion of their revenue is raised locally if they are to be accountable to the local electorate?

Hazel Blears: Yes, it was Sir Michael Lyons who said that the property-based tax was an important element in the accountability of local authorities to the people that they serve. It is clearly important that local authorities have some flexibility, and we have recently decided that we will give them the ability to raise supplementary business rates in their area, subject to a whole range of safeguards to ensure that they do not impose a burden on business. There are already business improvement districts, in which local people get a vote on raising more money so that they can do the things that really matter to their local communities. It is important that we do not enter into the debate on a local income tax lightly, because such a tax would involve a massive shift from older people to hard-working families. I know that the Liberal Democrats choose to talk about a local income tax as though there would be no losers; actually, there would be many thousands of losers, mainly from hard-working families.

Bob Neill: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although I might agree with her that a local income tax is the wrong answer, a real problem has none the less been created by her Government as a result of the plethora of unfunded burdens, regulations, inspection regimes, red tape and ring-fenced funding that reduces the scope of local authorities to make local decisions for local people? Against that background, does she regard it as a considerable achievement that one third of the increase in the basic state pension is now eaten up by the increase in council tax?

Hazel Blears: Much as I like the hon. Gentleman—[Hon. Members: "Surely some mistake!"] It is only because I can look him in the eye. Much as I like him, I am afraid that he is significantly out of date, and I urge him to catch up. In the past 12 months, we have slashed the number of targets for local authorities from 1,200 to under 200. We have also un-ring-fenced £5 billion of resources for local authorities and their partners to spend on the things that really matter to local people. There is now a slimmed-down regime for local government, because I am determined that local authorities should be able to respond to the things that people think are important. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that.

Household Rubbish (Charges)

David Evennett: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the relationship between charges for the collection of household rubbish and council tax.

John Healey: Our Department is working closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on policies to reduce household waste, including possible waste incentive schemes.

David Evennett: I thank the Minister for his response. Will not the Government's plans for bin taxes simply harm the local environment by causing a surge in fly-tipping and backyard burning, as well as increasing bills for families? Is he aware that in the Republic of Ireland, which already has bin taxes, one in 10 people burn rubbish in their backyard? Surely the Government should be working with councils to extend recycling opportunities.

John Healey: Of course, we are doing just that—extending recycling opportunities. The performance of local authorities in recent years—including the hon. Gentleman's own, to which I pay tribute—has been extremely good. I recognise that fly-tipping is a concern, and we have made it clear that any pilots that go ahead would have to be in authorities that could show that they already had a good fly-tipping programme in place, as well as good recycling programmes. I think that we can reduce the risk, but this is clearly one of the things that we can test through pilot schemes, once we get them up and running next year.

Alan Simpson: In his discussions with his ministerial colleagues on how we manage household waste, will the Minister look at what is already happening in continental Europe, where biodegradable waste is being put back into the waste stream in order to deliver heat and electricity from biogas on a scale that the UK is barely even paddling in? When residents can be the beneficiaries of sustainable energy systems from their own waste, we see a profound change in the culture. Will the Minister explore that process for the UK as well?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right, and he knows a great deal about these things, including what goes on in many parts of the continent. My Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are encouraging local authorities to look widely into the kinds of investments and methods that are used—including on the continent—to make the best use of waste as well as to encourage recycling. Part of the provision that we shall put in place over the next three years will double the amount of private finance initiative cover to allow investment in a range of different techniques to go ahead.

Anne Main: May I caution the Minister? In some authorities, including my own—Liberal Democrat-run St. Albans—the literature that accompanied the waste collection was so badly worded that it caused utter confusion and had to be redrafted, rewritten and re-sent. [Hon. Members: "Recycled?"] Unfortunately, we have not had a Tory administration in St. Albans since 1997; otherwise, I am sure that we would have had a better service. Compounding that, we are now going over to a fortnightly putrescible waste collection, which is causing disturbance as well as raising concerns about smells, odours, flies and, indeed, infections. May I ask the Minister to keep a close eye on authorities that are going over to that system and to evaluate the situation after a reasonable time, as I am concerned that residents in my constituency are not being well served?

John Healey: In the end, the decision on whether to move towards collecting mainstream household waste every other week—in many areas where that happens, they also collect the recyclable waste at the same time—is clearly one for local authorities. I am sure that the hon. Lady will keep a close eye on the situation. We in central Government are interested to see the impact of these schemes, but in the end it is properly a decision—all Members would surely recognise this—for local authorities to take in view of what is best for their area and what can best help them achieve the recycling rates that this country requires over the next few years.

Council Housing (Disrepair)

Sally Keeble: What steps she is taking to reduce the level of disrepair in council housing.

Iain Wright: In 1997, we inherited a £19 billion backlog of disrepair in council housing. To tackle that, we committed to making all social housing decent, which includes tackling disrepair. By 2010, more than £40 billion will have been invested in improvements to social housing, and work will have been completed on more than 3.6 million properties, improving the homes of 8 million people, including 2.5 million children.

Sally Keeble: I very much appreciate the track record that my hon. Friend has set out. Is he aware, however, that 31 local authorities, including Northampton borough council, will not meet the decent homes standards until after 2010, and that another 19 have arm's length management organisations that do not yet have an investment programme, and no date has been given? What is the Department going to do to put pressure on those local authorities to deliver decent standard houses by 2010? I have to say that their failure to do so means that some of my constituents live in unacceptable standards of housing and some of the most vulnerable families live in harsh poor conditions.

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend is a true champion on behalf of Northampton and a real expert on housing issues. I have visited her constituency and we also discussed this matter in an Adjournment debate last year. I understand that, in January, Northampton borough council completed a consultation on a borough-wide housing strategy in which the priorities for housing in the borough were identified as increasing supply and improving the condition of the housing stock. I know that she is providing strong political leadership in her borough on this matter. I ask her to continue to flag it up to me so that we can continue to work together to minimise further slippage on disrepair.

Iris Robinson: Does the Minister agree that for people living in council areas where there is a history of disrepair and deprivation, there is a knock-on effect on the well-being of tenants, which often leads to low self-esteem, low educational attainment, depression and a reliance on drugs? Does he agree that it is therefore necessary for the Government to have a robust and external cyclical maintenance scheme in operation on a regular basis in order to improve the quality of life of people living in council houses?

Iain Wright: The hon. Lady makes a really important point, because housing is a key indicator of life expectancy, educational attainments and general feelings of well-being. It is right for the Government to have moved forward by investing unprecedented sums of money in decent housing so that this generation does not have to face the enormous backlog of disrepair left by the previous Tory Administration.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Minister use a departmental circular to remind local authorities of their moral obligation—quite apart from their legal obligations—to ensure that when they allocate houses, the fixtures and fittings are there and the house is clean? Far too often, my constituents and, I think, those of other hon. Members, complain to us about the callous disregard of housing departments, including Thurrock borough council, that allocate dirty and squalid housing units that are falling apart as a result of inadequate fittings. That has got to stop, as these people are under a lot of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that this supplementary question has to stop.

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend has made an important and serious point. When there are voids and when housing is reallocated by a council or housing association, that provides a good opportunity to ensure that any necessary repairs are carried out and any necessary health and safety measures undertaken. I shall go back to the Department and consider what he has said.

Grant Shapps: Given that the Government's expenditure of £12 billion on decent homes standards has increased the number of homes that meet those standards by only 14 per cent., given that they now admit that there is no chance of their meeting the 2010 target on decent homes, and given that a record 1.7 million families are on council housing waiting lists, is it not about time the Minister admitted that the Government are letting down the very people whom they claim to represent?

Iain Wright: I may have misheard what the hon. Gentleman said, but I do not think he declared any interests in housing policy in regard to private contractors.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman is missing a trick. We ought to consider where we have come from, and what we have achieved over the past 11 years: 580,000 new kitchens, 440,000 new bathrooms, 910,000 new central heating systems and—here I follow the trail of answers given by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda)—the rewiring of 630,000 council houses to ensure that they meet fire and safety requirements. The hon. Gentleman's party created an appalling backlog in repairs and maintenance, but this Government have tackled it.

Brian Iddon: I welcome the decent homes target, but does my hon. Friend accept that council house management and maintenance allowances are far too low and below the level required for the decent homes standard to be met? Incidentally, we inherited that legacy from the Opposition.

Iain Wright: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's expertise in housing matters. His local arm's length management organisation, Bolton At Home, is a fine example of what can be achieved in the context of decent homes. I can tell him that management and maintenance allowances per dwelling have increased from about £1,031 in 2001-02 to £1,721 in 2008-09, which constitutes an average real-terms increase of 4.6 per cent. per annum.
	We are examining the whole principle behind the financing of council housing, and will report shortly. One of the issues that will be examined is management and the maintenance allowance.

Flooding

Anne McIntosh: What assessment she has made of the impact on the summer floods of 2007 of householders concreting over front gardens; and if she will bring forward proposals for planning permission to be sought prior to such alterations being carried out.

John Healey: Two thirds of the homes that were flooded during last summer's floods were flooded by the run-off from surface water. That is why the Government announced in February that, in future, people would need planning permission to pave over front gardens when the material used makes the surface impermeable.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will know that 5,500 householders have been unable to return home, and that about a quarter of them are still living in caravans. To what extent has he implemented the conclusion in the Pitt report that no householder or business owner should of right be able to add any impermeable surface to his property? Will he support the Land Use (Garden Protection) Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), which will be presented to the House in due course?

John Healey: The hon. Lady is right. Figures that I published today suggest that 5,500 householders are still not fully back in their own homes, and although the number living in caravans has fallen by some 1,000 over the last couple of months, it is still about 1,400. Progress has been made, but more needs to be done over the next few months.
	As the hon. Lady said, one of the drainage recommendations in the Pitt report was that people should have to obtain planning permission if they wished to hard-pave their front gardens. We will implement that recommendation from October.

Brian Jenkins: Before my hon. Friend goes down the planning consent route, will he acknowledge that a charge is incurred by local people who make planning applications for developments of this kind? Will he instead go down the building consent route, which would mean informing all contractors in the area that they must abide by the regulations laid down by their local authority on water containment?

John Healey: The best approach to deal with the particular problem of increased run-off as a result of paved front gardens is the planning permission route. We are looking at whether, having implemented that in October this year, we should apply similar standards to non-domestic properties such as offices, industry and car parks. My hon. Friend may like to know that we will produce guidance on how householders can pave over their front gardens without using impermeable materials that will require planning permission.

James Gray: The many thousands of houses that were tragically flooded last summer, partly because of the concreting over of front gardens, will not be helped in any shape, size or form by the prevention of that in the future, because the concrete that is there already will still be there unless the Government intend to make the measure retrospective. What is important is that gardens as a whole should be preserved—not just front gardens, but all gardens. Will the Government therefore ask the planning system to take a look at garden grabbing? We need to keep our gardens in our town areas. If we do that, that is where the water goes, so never mind setting up an army of spies to look into whether people are planning applications for their front gardens.

John Healey: That is a matter for local authorities as local planning authorities, and they take such issues into account where they are relevant.

Community Groups

Linda Gilroy: What progress has been made on proposals for the transfer of assets to community groups; and whether the proposals in the empowerment White Paper will affect this process.

Hazel Blears: Since May last year, community groups have been assisted on asset transfer projects in 20 areas, the Cabinet Office has allocated £30 million in refurbishment grants, and there is new guidance for local authorities. The White Paper will build on that, and in particular propose a new right for citizens which will ensure that councils consider proposals to transfer underused properties or land to community ownership.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and I particularly welcome the emphasis she placed on the transfer of land. Does she agree that community land trusts have a particularly important role to play in achieving a permanently affordable stock of intermediate housing, and will she encourage the transfer of assets to such trusts?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has an extremely good record of being imaginative and innovative and of supporting such projects in her area. We now have 14 community land trust pilots—overseen by Salford university—in both rural and urban areas. In some of the rural areas, we already have people occupying the homes that have been built in this way. This is a very imaginative way of ensuring that affordable housing remains for the long term. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) later today to consider how we can press on further with this agenda.

David Drew: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, and I thank her for seeing me about the Cashes Green site—and I also look forward to hosting the Under-Secretary when he comes to Stroud. What progress is being made on the pilots, and when will the full report eventually be produced by Bob Paterson and others?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is also extremely supportive on these issues, and I know he has been imaginative in taking them forward in his own area. I can promise him that there will be a report on the pilots. He will know that there are still some technical issues to be explored, particularly in relation to the urban pilots, which are on a broader scale and therefore require more work to be done. I will make sure that we come forward with our proposals as soon as we can, as I understand that there is a pressing need to get a proper framework for this way of working. Not only community land trusts but community ownership in general can ensure that organisations are sustainable for the long term, with an income stream that means they are less dependent on grants from local authorities. That is why such trusts are such an important part of the Government's business.

Preventing Violent Extremism Programme

David Heathcoat-Amory: What recent representations she has received on the preventing violent extremism programme.

Hazel Blears: I have held regular meetings with a range of partners, including Muslim communities, the police, the Local Government Association, parliamentarians from both Houses and others with an interest in the preventing violent extremism programme. We are working closely with these partners at every level—local, national and international—to build the resilience of local communities so that they are able to stand up to the messages of extremism.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Can we be sure that, in pursuing her laudable aim of combating Islamic extremism and fundamentalism, the right hon. Lady conducts a very thorough audit of the Islamic bodies that participate in these schemes and receive Government recognition? Can she also say whether the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an extremist organisation, participates in any way in the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board or any of its contributing bodies?

Hazel Blears: The right hon. Gentleman is right that it is extremely important that, in allocating our funding to local authorities, we have a good degree of reassurance about the kind of projects funded. We are about to embark on a three-year programme involving £45 million for local authorities, so I am absolutely determined to ensure that we will fund projects that really help to build the resilience of local communities. The local police are closely involved with local authorities in making these funding decisions at local level. The Government offices are being strengthened to ensure that there is extra reassurance. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, despite the fact that this money is, in general, local government grant, I want to make absolutely sure that after 12 months we look at the situation again.
	On the organisation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I am extremely keen to ensure that we continue with our policy of engaging with the groups that are prepared to stand up and tackle and condemn extremism. That will be the continuing policy, and wherever people are not in that category, they are not groups with which we wish to collaborate in our endeavours to tackle extremism.

Julian Lewis: I am encouraged by that response. Will the Secretary of State confirm that part of the money allocated to this programme will be used to try to convey to young Muslim people the message of senior Muslim scholars that the use of violent extremism in political causes is essentially un-Islamic?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and a key part of our strategy is to tackle the ideology perpetrated by extremists. It is absolutely vital that young people, and also women, have the ability, knowledge and skills to stand up and combat these messages. That is why we have an extensive programme of work with women. There is the National Muslim Women's Advisory Group, and I intend to have a similar group of young people who will be empowered to take on leadership roles and to play a much larger part in their communities. This is the point at which we move from small projects that reach a few people, to trying to get the message across not just to the Muslim community but to all our communities that it is the voice of the overriding, law-abiding majority that we must hear, and that we must tackle this ideology, which threatens our communities.

Paul Goodman: The Secretary of State will be aware of claims that the Muslim Association of Britain—one of the four founder members of MINAB, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) referred—is, in effect, the British arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Has she carried out an assessment of this claim and can she definitively say to the House that it is untrue?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know that the founding partners of MINAB are those organisations that have committed to having proper standards in their mosques, and to being part of our policy of standing up and condemning and tackling Muslim extremism. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that checks are carried out regarding all the organisations that we fund. There was some question recently—it was perhaps raised by the hon. Gentleman—about the Cordoba Foundation, in Tower Hamlets. That organisation was not funded under our preventing violent extremism programme. The local authority in Tower Hamlets was going to engage with the Cordoba Foundation; it decided not to, and that was absolutely the right decision. I can therefore give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that these checks are carried out, and I am determined that we will fund organisations that want to stand up and encourage the mainstream, moderate Muslim majority in this country to feel strong enough to rebut these messages of hate and extremism that threaten a minority of our community, but which nevertheless constitute a very serious and important threat.

Local Government Expenditure

Paddy Tipping: What proportion of local government expenditure was (a) raised locally and (b) met by Government grant in 2007-08.

John Healey: About a quarter of council revenue spending is financed by council tax; about three quarters is financed from Government grant.

Paddy Tipping: Is the balance of funding right? If more money were raised locally, would not local authorities and local councillors be more receptive and sympathetic to the needs of people who live in their areas?

John Healey: Some argue that, but it is also important for all local councils to be properly funded. That requires a significant redistribution of central Government funding, which we make each year, and, thus, a significant proportion of central Government support, which we give each year. Over the past 10 or 11 years, the proportion of funding raised through council tax has remained at about a quarter. The proportion of central Government funding has, of course, risen: local councils have seen rises of more than 39 per cent. above inflation over those 10 years, which directly contrasts with the three years before 1997, when there was a 7 per cent. real-terms decrease.

Gary Streeter: Why is local government grant divided in such a way that a child educated in Devon receives £500 per annum less than a child educated in Manchester? Given that teachers are paid the same nationally, how on earth can that be fair?

John Healey: Quite simply because, although the hon. Gentleman's party leader does not appear to want to continue it, we have a system of funding local councils and the people who live in their areas according to the needs in those areas. That is intrinsic to our system, and that is the way it will remain.

Topical Questions

Andrew George: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Hazel Blears: My Department will continue with our three priorities of building more homes, empowering local people and building strong communities.

Andrew George: In my constituency, three times as many properties continue to be sold to second home buyers than to first-time buyers. The Government's rural advocate and their Affordable Rural Housing Commission recommend action, and meetings that I had with the Minister for Housing's predecessor and with the Prime Minister have left the door open for action, so can I assume that the Government will act to rebalance the market? If so, when will they do so?

Iain Wright: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Planning policy statement 3 on housing empowers local authorities to shape housing according to the specific circumstances of their local areas. I understand the point that he is making about rural areas, particularly in respect of second homes. Our problem is that introducing something such as a requirement to obtain planning permission to use a property as a second home is difficult and impractical. That is because decisions on a planning application can be made only on the basis of land-use planning considerations, and whether someone who is purchasing a property already has a main residence elsewhere is not such a land-use planning consideration. I understand the points that he has made, and that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) is examining the matter.

Andrew Love: In the two years since the system's introduction, my local authority, like many up and down the country, has not taken the opportunity to designate areas for selective licensing of houses in multiple occupation, and, as a result, many of my constituents are living in very substandard conditions. I know that a review is being undertaken. Will the Minister incorporate this matter into the review to ensure that we find a way to move forward, so that there can be a genuine partnership between Government and local authorities to cover those who are not being serviced locally?

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend raises a very important matter. We have provided an opportunity in a number of different ways for local authorities to investigate and license properties that represent HMOs—for example, the mandatory licensing system and the additional licensing system for smaller properties. I must say to him that only one local authority has sought permission from the Department to use that power. We also have selective licensing for a wider area, where a local authority believes that a situation is detrimental to the sense of neighbourhood in those communities. I believe that about five authorities have come forward in that regard, and his is not one of those. The Building Research Establishment is reviewing the licensing arrangements and I shall ensure that it takes on board the points that he makes. We must ensure that available powers are used, and where they are not being used, we need to know why. We need to look into this area.

Eric Pickles: I was very concerned to read in  The Independent on Sunday that the Prime Minister is very critical of the Secretary of State's handling of the bin taxes. I was especially interested to read that a Downing street spokesman had said of the bin taxes that they would be
	"Brought in over Gordon's dead body."
	Given the bin taxes' ability to come, zombie-like, back from the grave, that does not bode especially well for the Prime Minister's long-term prospects. Will the right hon. Lady now lay this discredited policy to rest and kill off the bin tax pilots and the bin tax laws currently before Parliament?

Hazel Blears: I do not know about people coming back from the dead, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Dispatch Box from Crewe, and I know that Tamsin Dunwoody will be an excellent Member of Parliament for that constituency from Friday morning.
	The Government's interests lie in ensuring that we encourage people to recycle. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my care for the environment and ensuring that we have a proper system of incentives and rewards to encourage this country to take its responsibilities for the environment seriously. I thought that the slogan was "Vote blue and go green", but that does not sound very green.

Eric Pickles: Well, I am not sure that that will do for the Prime Minister. May I remind the Secretary of State that the Government have put a pin into the voodoo doll of the bin tax on four previous occasions? They scrapped it on 27 April, 12 September and 24 October last year, and again as recently as 5 May this year. Given that those occasions coincided with deep crises for the Government, may we anticipate a further announcement about the fate of the bin taxes in the early hours of the morning on Friday 23 May?

Hazel Blears: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman recognises this statement:
	"The Government's decision to provide a power for five local authorities to introduce financial incentive pilot schemes for reducing waste is a good news for councils and local people."
	That is a direct quotation from Paul Bettison, who is the Tory chairman of the environment board of the Tory-controlled Local Government Association. Perhaps there is a rift between the LGA and the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Soulsby: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Councillor Manjula Sood, who last Thursday was unanimously elected as lord mayor of Leicester, the first Asian woman lord mayor of any UK city, and in almost 800 years of the mayoralty in Leicester? Following Councillor Sood's example, will my right hon. Friend say what progress has been made to ensure the recruitment of a greater number of women councillors and councillors from ethnic minorities, especially women councillors from ethnic minorities?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in those congratulations. I have met Councillor Sood and I wrote to her on 30 April congratulating her on her appointment. I wrote:
	"I am so proud of your achievements. You are an inspiration to others".
	I agree entirely that we do not have enough councillors from black and minority ethnic communities, especially women; we have only 168 out of 20,000 councillors. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality this week launched a taskforce to see what practical steps we can take to ensure that more people come forward so that our councils are more representative of our communities as a whole. I have no doubt that Councillor Sood will be an excellent lord mayor and I wish her all the best for her year of office.

Julia Goldsworthy: Thanks to the Minister for Housing's transparent choice of stationery, we now know that her Department expects house prices to, at best, fall by 10 to 15 per cent. What is the Department's estimate of the worst-case scenario?

Caroline Flint: What we are working towards at the moment is how we can engage with the construction industry, mortgage lenders and across Government to ensure that we do whatever we can to deal with the present challenges. Fundamentally, we need a long-term view of how we can ensure that when the upturn comes—and it will—we are on task to build more homes. That is our agenda and that is what we will do. We will continue to engage in a common-sense, practical way that delivers for our communities.

Angela Smith: Many of my constituents express increasing frustration about the length of time that they have to wait on Sheffield council's waiting list for a council house. What does my right hon. Friend think needs to be done to improve allocations policy and to make it work more successfully for our hard-working decent families?

Caroline Flint: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this subject and her commitment to ensuring not only that we build more affordable homes, including social homes for rent, but that we avoid the mistakes of the past, when we have often created two cities in one—one for those in the social housing sector and one for those in the private housing sector. As we work towards producing our Green Paper on housing reform towards the end of this year, we will look at how the allocation system can be fairer and more transparent and at whether there are inequalities in it that need to be addressed. We need to address how much more we can enable people to get the skills to work while finding ways in which we can support young working people on low incomes so that they get access to housing.

Hugo Swire: Given that Cranbrook in East Devon will be a prototype eco-town, can we expect some support from the Government in ensuring that it is a zero-carbon development through the provision of a combined heat and power station?

Caroline Flint: We are obviously working with the local authorities and partners in the Cranbrook area to support the delivery of the housing and of the necessary infrastructure. To support that, we have provided £1 million in 2007-08 and £5.5 million for 2008 to 2011. At the same time, we are working to see how we can ensure that homes can meet higher environmental standards over the next few years. I am working with the industry on a journey towards zero carbon for all new buildings by 2016. Clearly, some developments in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world will be affected by that.

Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the tremendous contribution that the new deal for communities programme can make to the regeneration of local areas, including King's Norton in south Birmingham. When will she make an announcement on the final year's funding for the new deal for communities programme? When she makes that announcement, will she emphasise the importance not only of the much-needed infrastructure work but of the community development work that will be one of the important legacies of the programme?

Hazel Blears: I am very pleased with the progress on the new deal for communities in King's Norton. My hon. Friend has been a key driver for that programme. I should be in a position to make some final decisions in June, so he does not have too long to wait. I urge the local authority in Birmingham to work with the community development trust that is already established there. My hon. Friend will know that regeneration is about far more than just bricks and mortar. Unless we support the families in those areas, we will not get the long-term sustainable regeneration that is so important for the future.

Greg Hands: May I commend the Secretary of State for calling my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) shortly after his victory in the London mayoral election? I think that the Minister for the Olympics did the same. What advice has the Secretary of State given to the Prime Minister, who has yet to make that call? The Prime Minister's spokesman said that he would make contact with the Mayor
	"when they have matters to discuss".
	In London, an awful lot of matters need to be discussed, not least knife and youth crime. Will the Secretary of State have a word with the Prime Minister, as perhaps it is time for him to make that call?

Hazel Blears: The Prime Minister has done better than simply making a private call. He has congratulated the Mayor in public and is happy to engage with him. The hon. Gentleman might want to have a word with the new Mayor himself. I understand that the Mayor recently met Mayor Bloomberg, from New York. Mayor Bloomberg's advice to Mayor Johnson was to get rid of his manifesto commitments as soon as he could, because he might find them a bit inconvenient. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell the new Mayor that he wants him to abide by those commitments.

Katy Clark: The Housing Minister will be aware of the concerns that are being raised by some residents of newly built estates about the role of property management companies. She might well be aware of the all-party group that has recently been set up. Will she be willing to meet that group to discuss its concerns and what the Government can do to address those issues?

Caroline Flint: I welcome the formation of the all-party group, and the work that my hon. Friend contributed to its establishment. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) who for some weeks now, if not months, has been talking to me about the problem of the lack of empowerment felt by residents in homes run by property and land maintenance companies in respect of charges on communal areas and other matters. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friends, and I apologise for not having been able to find the time before now. We will make sure that an appointment is put in the diary.

Richard Younger-Ross: Could the Minister explain how a contradiction in Government policy will be resolved? On the one hand, the Government are working for the regeneration of our high streets, market towns and seaside resorts. On the other, their planning policies—which may allow an additional four supermarkets in Teignmouth and Dawlish, bringing the total there to seven—are likely to lead to the closure of shops in those high streets.

Hazel Blears: I certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to press on with our policy of putting town centres first and making sure that they are vibrant, exciting places for people to shop. We also intend to make sure that we plan properly for the impact of major retail developments. There is no contradiction at the heart of our policy making: we intend to make sure that our retail centres continue to be the sort of places to which people want to go to do their shopping and which contribute to the quality of life that is so important to all of us.

Dari Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accept that it is time that the Cabinet met outside London? I suggest that their first such meeting should be held in Stockton-on-Tees. That would give Cabinet members the opportunity to listen to, and gain experience from, local people, and to hear about the wide range of delivery of Government service.

Hazel Blears: As usual, my hon. Friend is a champion of her area. In a speech just last week, I suggested that the Cabinet might like to consider meeting outside London—

Iain Wright: In Crewe!

Hazel Blears: In Crewe, indeed. My proposal was not just for the Cabinet to meet outside London, but that it should engage with local people and schoolchildren to take evidence about what is happening in our communities. That is vital, as there is an awful lot that we can learn from the day-to-day experiences at the sharp end. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that the first meeting will be held in Stockton, but I am sure that she will be the first of many to seek such a meeting.

Laura Moffatt: My right hon. Friend knows that the best way to tackle extremism is through understanding and knowledge. Crawley's Interfaith Network does a fantastic job of bringing together people of faith—and of no faith—to increase that understanding. Will she ensure that the funding that has made it possible for us to have a co-ordinator will continue, so that the network's excellent work can go on?

Hazel Blears: As usual, my hon. Friend raises an important matter, and one in which she has been particularly active in seeking to build the resilience of her local community. She will know that the Government's inter-faith strategy has been out for consultation, and I hope to be in a position to respond very soon. It is absolutely vital that we bring together people of different faiths. Very often, people discover that the major faiths in this country have far more in common than they have differences. The opportunity for people to debate and to do things together is really important. This is not just about social dialogue: it is about social action that brings people together to share experiences. That is the way we build strong communities.

Graham Stuart: Hundreds of my constituents are still not in their homes after last year's floods, and dozens are still in caravans. I know that, like me, the Minister is fully aware of the suffering and anguish that so many people have endured in the past year. What steps are he and the Government taking to work with the insurance industry to ensure that people get back in their homes as soon as possible, and that hundreds of people are not still out of their homes come Christmas?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is right. Something like 1,000 households are still not fully back in their own homes, and about 300 are still living in caravans in his East Riding local authority area. So far, central Government have given his council over £6 million, and there will be more to come. I met the leader of the Association of British Insurers last week, and I shall meet the chief executives of the leading companies in a couple of weeks' time. I pay tribute to the work that they and local councils such as the hon. Gentleman's have done to try to get people back in their own homes. It is clear now that over the next couple of months we need to step up our efforts and pull out all the stops to get more people back in their own homes, certainly by the anniversary of those terrible floods last summer. That is exactly what we will do.

Adults with Autism

Angela Browning: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose duties upon the Secretary of State and certain organisations involved in health and social care in respect of support for people aged 18 and over with autism; and for connected purposes.
	I declare an unremunerated interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society.
	Autism is a lifelong condition, yet from the lack of support available to adults with autism and the lack of knowledge of their needs, people could be forgiven for believing that that is not the case. I am using the term "autism" now and in the Bill to refer to all adults on the autism spectrum, including those with Asperger's syndrome and high-functioning autism.
	At this point, however, I should like to deviate from what I intended to say to welcome strongly the Government's announcement on 8 May in which they set out a number of actions in relation to adults with autism. Those actions include increasing the Department of Health's capacity to work on the issue by employing a full-time autism specialist and by having one of the Department's officials working specifically on autism, as well as undertaking research into the number of adults with autism. I believe that that is a real step forward and that those measures have the potential to make a real difference to the lives of people living with autism.
	I am introducing the Bill, though, as there is still an imbalance between the increasing recognition of the need to provide support to people with autism and the action taken to meet that need. That discrepancy is highlighted in the recent National Autistic Society's report "I Exist", which details the experiences of adults with autism and the action taken by local authorities and primary care trusts in relation to autism. The report reveals that almost two thirds of adults with autism do not have enough support to meet their needs and that more than nine in 10 parents are worried about their adult son's or daughter's future when they are no longer able to support them.
	I will come back to more of the findings of that report as I discuss the clauses of the Bill, but first I should like to read out a quote from the mother of an adult with autism, which I found particularly moving. She said:
	"My daughter has quite calmly said that when we die, she plans to kill herself because she knows she will be completely alone and unable to care for herself. She weeps on a daily basis because she is so scared of the future. There is nobody to help her manage her daily life, and more importantly, who will love her when we're gone?"
	I believe that the duties in the Bill would be instrumental in transforming the experiences of such adults and enabling them to achieve fulfilled and independent lives.
	I should like to make it clear that, when I refer to independent living, I am using the definition that the Disability Rights Commission used:
	"all disabled people having the same choice, control and freedom as any other citizen—at home, at work and as members of the community. This does not necessarily mean disabled people doing everything for themselves, but it does mean that any practical assistance people need should be based on their own choices and aspirations".
	So what change is required? Well, we still do not know how many adults there are with autism in the UK, and that lack of information has a negative impact on the planning of services. More than three quarters of primary care trusts do not keep a record of how many adults with autism there are in their areas and 86 per cent. of local authorities say that if they had more information about the number of adults with autism in their areas, it would help them with their long-term planning.
	The Government now intend to support a study of the number of adults with autism. That is why I am not calling for that today, but it is important that action for adults does not wait for that study to report and that that research is reinforced by action locally. Therefore, the Bill would also require local authorities and NHS bodies to identify people with autism in their areas and maintain a register of the numbers, which should also include carers.
	In addition, the Bill proposes placing additional duties on local authorities and NHS bodies, because despite recent Government guidance to tackle the inaction by local services, it is apparent that not nearly enough is being done to support people.
	There is a lack of clear responsibility for autism at a local level, and that needs to be addressed. First, there is currently no responsibility for autism at a senior level. The director of adult social services guidance published by the Department of Health in 2006 attempted to tackle that in part by stating:
	"Local authorities shall ensure that the DASS draws up clear lines of responsibility, within his or her staff team for managing the needs of all adult client groups,"
	with autism defined as one of those client groups, yet only 39 per cent. of local authorities say that the requirement has been met. A duty on local authorities and NHS bodies to appoint a senior-level person or team with responsibility for autism is essential if the situation is to improve.
	Secondly—this is closely linked to the previous point—in the majority of local authorities there is uncertainty about which team provides support for people with autism. As autism is a developmental disorder, not a learning disability or a mental health problem, many adults with autism, particularly those with Asperger's syndrome or high-functioning autism, are passed over by both teams, receiving no proper help from either. More than 60 per cent. of adults with Asperger's syndrome or high-functioning autism say that they have experienced problems when trying to receive support from their local authority or health services. Of those, 52 per cent. were told that they did not fit easily into mental health or learning disability services.
	That is perhaps unsurprising, given that nearly half of local authorities say that they do not have a process in place to manage how people with autism who do not fulfil the learning disability or mental health criteria receive support. As one local authority said,
	"service silos means ASD doesn't fit. ASD falls between service areas".
	The structural disadvantage that adults with autism frequently experience is a major factor in poor outcomes, and many adults' problems go unaddressed. The Bill therefore requires local authorities and NHS bodies to establish and publish a route by which all persons with an autism spectrum disorder may access assessments and any resulting care.
	Thirdly, there is a worrying absence of references to autism in many strategic planning and commissioning documents produced by local bodies. Commissioning strategies should include the requirements of people with autism. To bring that about, it is essential that local authorities and partner NHS bodies have regard to the requirements of people with autism in their area when undertaking joint strategic needs assessments. Many areas are still to publish their joint strategic needs assessments, but it is clear from those that have done so that many assessments do not cover adults with autism. That is not acceptable.
	Fourthly, the Bill would require local authorities and NHS bodies to secure sufficient training about autism for staff who are in regular contact with people on the autistic spectrum, and those involved in assessment. It is of great concern that more than 70 per cent. of local authorities do not believe that care managers receive sufficient training about autism either in their initial professional training or as part of their ongoing professional development. That is perhaps unsurprising, given that more than three quarters of local authorities do not have an autism training strategy at all.
	Some 98 per cent. of local authorities and 100 per cent. of primary care trusts say that the Government could provide them with more guidance and assistance to support adults with autism, so there is near-universal demand for more support. From that it can be concluded that there is a recognition that existing work and initiatives have not gone far enough. The Bill therefore calls on the Secretary of State to ensure that there is regional support to assist local authorities and NHS bodies in taking forward good autism practice. The Bill intends to address the inactivity in relation to autism, particularly locally. It is time to recognise that it is unacceptable for adults with autism to continue to be socially excluded. We know what change is required; we now need action from local services to make that change happen.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Angela Browning, John Barrett, Roger Berry, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Geoffrey Cox, Michael Fabricant, Mrs. Janet Dean, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Anne Main and Mr. Andrew Turner.

Adults with Autism

Angela Browning accordingly presented a Bill to impose duties upon the Secretary of State and certain organisations involved in health and social care in respect of support for people aged 18 and over with autism; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 111].

Orders of the Day

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill  [Lords]
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

(Clauses Nos. 4, 11, 14 and 23, Schedule No. 2 and any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners)
	 Further c onsidered in Committee [Progress, 19 May].

[Sir Alan Haselhurst  in the Chair]

Clause 14
	 — 
	Conditions of licences for treatment

Iain Duncan Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 21, page 9, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	'(b) after "father" insert "and a mother".'.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 12, page 9, line 10, after 'parenting', insert
	'and a father or male role model'.
	No. 22, in clause 23, page 19, line 6, leave out from '(2)' to end of line and insert—
	'after 'father', insert 'and a mother.'.'.
	No. 13, page 19, line 6, after 'parenting', insert
	'and a father or male role model'.

Iain Duncan Smith: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which are in my name and in the names of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I should explain why, in the amendments, we have gone slightly further than the debate with the Government over whether the word "father" should be in the clause. We propose to retain the wording "a father" and add "and a mother".
	In the Government's consultation, they received an overwhelming amount of correspondence from the public in favour of a reference to fathers and mothers. More importantly perhaps, clause 54(2)(c) refers for the first time in the Bill to gay couples acting as fathers, and I believe that in the interests of balance, there should be a reference to mothers. We propose to amend the Bill accordingly.
	Since 1990 there has been a huge amount of research on the effect of absent fathers, demonstrating an increasing understanding of the importance of the role that fathers play in the home. That is not to suggest that if a family breaks up and the father leaves, that is simply bad for the children: research that we published recently, which was drawn from more than 3,000 evidence sessions, showed that the effect on those broken families is remarkable—75 per cent. of the children are more likely to fail at school, 70 per cent. are more likely to succumb to drug addiction, 50 per cent. are more likely to have serious alcohol problems, and 35 per cent. are more likely to experience some form of unemployment or welfare dependency.
	The research highlights the fact that fathers bring something more profound to the parenting process, which has for too long been taken for granted. In some cases people are determined that it should not be discussed. One set of evidence published as recently as 2007 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation states:
	"Maternal 'inputs' are not consistently correlated with indices of their children's development once they enter secondary school, whereas paternal 'inputs'  are so correlated. Indeed, there is an indication that teenagers' sense of self-worth is predicted by the quality of their play with their fathers some 13 years earlier."
	The report goes on to say that that
	"has demonstrated links between parental reports of father's involvement at the age of seven and lower levels of later police contact as reported by the mothers".
	Obviously, that makes the strong and profound point that the effect of fathers on both sexes during the teenage years is important.
	Something of which I had not been aware came from the research that we have conducted in the past two and a half years, and I should like to put it before the Committee. It is simply this: the effect that absent fathers have on young girls too. That issue is often forgotten. We always hear of the effect of a father's absence on young boys in respect of the whole issue of role modelling and giving them a stable beginning. However, in Britain we have some of the highest levels of under-age sexual activity, particularly among young girls, and there is very strong evidence to suggest that the effect of an absent father is to distort that further. That is because young girls more often learn empathetic and non-conditional love—something important and profound—from their fathers. They learn that it is possible to have a relationship that does not necessarily involve sex. We all know about the pressures that a young girl is under from young boys at such a time, and her relationships may have to countenance sex at an early stage. From most of the studies, it is clear that the absence of a base from which to understand how far such relationships need to go has a huge effect on such daughters.
	The studies that we have been considering show consistently that such girls lose out in a way that we have not understood or even talked about enough. We know all about how sons need stable father figures who give them decent modelling, such as going out to work and having a creative relationship with the mother; however, the absence of a father is as significant for a daughter as for a son. The evidence on young daughters is also absolutely critical.

George Howarth: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I apologise for intervening so early in his speech, but he was moving on to another point.
	Although I accept as an ideal a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman says, does he not accept that there are bad fathers, and that bad fathers can have a bad influence in some circumstances? The picture is not always as rosy as he paints it.

Iain Duncan Smith: It is far from rosy, and I am not trying to paint a picture in which the simple arrival of a father makes a huge difference, regardless of what has happened with him. There are plenty of very bad fathers out there; there are fathers who are absent but arrive at particular periods and cause mayhem. We know about that. In many of the areas that I spend a lot of time visiting at the moment we see much of that. We also know about the problems surrounding those who are loosely described as stepfathers, but whom we might call "friendly father arrivals". Such men are not related to or involved with the child, and levels of abuse can follow—not sexual abuse necessarily, but violence, possibly against the mother. As the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) knows, violence against women is at very high levels and rising.
	We know all about those problems. I am not trying to paint some incredibly rosy picture. However, my point is that, on the whole, the absence of fathers has a detrimental effect on children; the vast majority of fathers are more likely to be positive influences if they are connected to and held to the family for various other reasons.

Evan Harris: May I bring the right hon. Gentleman from the general to the specific? We are dealing with the duty on clinics when they consider applications from lesbian couples and solo parents. Does he consider that lesbian couples with children are broken families, to some of which he attached the litany of concern that he rightly has? If he does, what evidence does he have that children with lesbian parents are going off the rails?

Iain Duncan Smith: I do not consider them to be broken families. We do not have enough data to understand exactly what the nature of the outcomes is—I shall come back to that point in a second.
	We know that absent fathers have a detrimental effect on their children. That is found up and down the income scale—the percentage effect is exactly the same for people living in Chelsea as it is for people living in difficult parts of Lambeth. It is not about whether the families are broken—I used the word "broken" because they are without a father. Cohabiting and gay couples are slightly different. I shall deal with the subject of gay couples in a moment, and I hope that that will explain a little more to the hon. Gentleman.

Gerald Howarth: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is aware of the study carried out by the Office for National Statistics about six or seven years ago? It found that the incidence of behavioural disorder in 11 to 16-year-old boys was up to three times higher in households where there was a single parent or where the parents were cohabiting than it was in those households where the parents were married. That is a real issue, facing our people day to day in our streets and cities throughout this land.

Iain Duncan Smith: I do not want to go down that road, but I will say this as a link to the intervention by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris): the issue with regard to cohabiting is the scale of break-up. We know from the reports that have been done—we have seen endless reports and we are just beginning to get through some of them—that 50 per cent. of cohabiting relationships are likely to break up. One in two will break up before the child is five. That is an enormously high figure; the highest level of divorce for married couples with a child is one in 12. There is a particular problem with cohabitation, which brings me neatly to the Bill, because there is no recognition in it of family ties: as long as the people involved are considered to be "stable" or in loving relationships, treatment should be available. That is how the Bill stands, which makes it even more important that we reintroduce the recognition of the need for a father, because we are dealing with the strong likelihood that there are cohabiting couples who will want to undergo such treatment, and such a change would act as a strong reminder to them, much as it will do to lone parents.

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman is making general points about single parents. Can he tell the Committee what evidence he has that his assertions apply to couples who approach IVF clinics and are in receipt of such treatment? Research shows the contrary of what he is suggesting.

Iain Duncan Smith: I do not believe that there is such a debate about research. The trends may or may not be ameliorated slightly, but over time I suggest that the level of break-up for cohabiting couples will be higher, even for those receiving IVF, than it will be for married couples. That is the nature of such relationships. I am not going to debate that with the Minister, but it is a fact. I do not think that that will change, regardless of IVF. The right hon. Lady says that I am speaking generally, and I am, because I am making a point about why there is a problem, and why the need for fathers is so important.

Mark Simmonds: My right hon. Friend is making an articulate and powerful speech. Is he aware that despite the fact that it is necessary for clinics to consider the need for a father, there is no evidence that there has been any discrimination against same-sex couples or single mothers in accessing treatments?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend makes me jump ahead of myself. I shall come back to that point in a second because I do not believe that there is any such evidence; I agree with him on that.

Emily Thornberry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Iain Duncan Smith: If the hon. Lady wants to intervene on that point, she will be able to so in a moment, because I am coming to it.
	To conclude the point about cohabiting parents, I suggest that it is the nature and the break-up of such relationships that put children in such difficulty. Recognising in the Bill that it is important for people to understand the importance of the father in a relationship can only strengthen their thought process as they go through this course of action and will hopefully act as a reference for them in the future. We cannot promise anything, but taking it away will have exactly the opposite effect. It is as though we are saying to couples, especially in the heterosexual world, that fathers are less important than mothers and that, therefore, they do not need to be considered. There is little research that any of us can claim one way or the other about outcomes for gay and lesbian couples. I draw no inference from that other than that we need more research, and I am sure that that will come in time. I—like everybody else, I hope—would want such relationships to prosper and for any child to benefit in such stable, successful relationships. I believe that the amendment would help and not act against that.

David Taylor: I am pleased to co-sponsor the amendment. Is it not the case that the current legal framework was fashioned two decades ago when child development theory appeared to focus almost entirely on the relationship with the mother? In the past 20 years, so much evidence has emerged of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman adduces in his well argued speech that it would be perverse to write the father out of the script, as the Bill would do if left unamended.

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree. The Government's action is unnecessary and they have overreacted—I shall deal with that shortly. Stonewall described the change today as a tidying-up exercise, but my problem is that when one tidies up, one can also tidy out. We need to be conscious of what may be lost, and balance it against what may be gained.
	Why do the Government need to make the change? Some in the gay and lesbian community will feel uneasy about the original guidance on the father, and they will have made representations. They will probably feel some unease about the amendment. I am sympathetic to that, but the key point is that unease does not mean that there is discrimination. To what extent is there discrimination? Is there simply a sense of unease that does not change any outcomes? The Government's position is that they need to remove the original clause, which referred to the father, because they perceived it as discriminating against gay or lesbian couples.
	I was struck when reading the debates in the other place by the fact that the Government spokesperson made such an absolute case. He is not a lawyer but he made a case that would brook no opposition because, according to him, the original clause clearly contravened the convention on human rights and that was that. However, I do not believe that even the strongest proponent of the Government's view would go as far as that here. Even Lord Lester says that there is a strong case, but his published views state that the matter is confusing and fraught with contradictions. We must consider whether the original provision somehow constituted an abuse of rights.

Evan Harris: rose—

Iain Duncan Smith: I will give way shortly to the hon. Gentleman, who is easing forward on his seat. He has been active in the past two days and I want to keep him rested because he has further to go. I hope that he recognises that I have his best interests at heart.
	I have not heard in our discussions about any couples who have gone to a clinic and been refused on the ground of the existing clause.

Emily Thornberry: The right hon. Gentleman has made that assertion in this place and elsewhere, and I have therefore caused it to be investigated. I do not know whether he is familiar with the Birmingham women's hospital, where the eligibility criteria for Birmingham-funded treatment and entry on the waiting list for assisted conception include:
	"A stable, heterosexual relationship of two years minimum."
	That is direct discrimination against lesbian couples and single women. If the right hon. Gentleman wants an example, there it is.

Iain Duncan Smith: That was a great try by the hon. Lady, but it does not work. I am debating what is in the Bill. The reality is that clause 14 is an advisory clause. Let me remind her how the Bill is phrased. It requires that account be taken of the welfare of the child,
	"including the need...for a father",
	and, if our amendment were passed, a mother. Nowhere does the Bill say that if that situation does not pertain, people will be not be allowed that treatment. Should anybody attempt not to allow such treatment after the Bill is passed, it would be illegal.

Andrew Selous: May I take my right hon. Friend back to his point about human rights law, which was referred to in the other place? Does he agree that it is a little curious that human rights law seems to look purely at the view of the adult? What about the child? Does a child not have the right to be born with a father? Is that not the most fundamental human right that any child in the world could ask for?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am going to come to that in a second.

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) made an intriguing intervention, because under Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority guidelines, discrimination for treatment on the basis of sexual orientation is not allowed. That clinic in Birmingham is therefore breaking HFEA guidelines.

Iain Duncan Smith: I was coming to that, too. My hon. Friend is quite right. The point is that protection already exists under human rights legislation and is embedded in the Bill.

Emily Thornberry: rose—

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady will have to wait—she has had her shot and I want to finish this point. The reality is that what has been described cannot happen and should not happen. My answer, therefore, is that we will not see it happen.

Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a good many of us wish that the situation were as described by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)?

Iain Duncan Smith: I enjoy my hon. Friend's interventions, as ever.

Evan Harris: On the European convention on human rights, the House is advised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which includes Members of the right hon. Gentleman's party. In a unanimous report, the Committee stated that "Without justification, such distinctions"—the distinctions that he wants to put into the Bill—
	"may be in breach of the right to respect for private life without discrimination".
	The report continued:
	"Similarly, the Convention prohibits unjustified discrimination"—
	he has not shown justification for his position—
	"between married and unmarried parents for the purposes of recognition of parental responsibility, or wider family law decisions on access and custody."
	The Committee went on to say that that needs to be removed in order for the provisions to comply. If the right hon. Gentleman is relying on people being able to go to the law, rather than having law that does not discriminate, I would suggest that he has got the law the wrong way round.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful for that intervention, but I simply do not agree, and I am not alone in that—there are human rights lawyers out there who do not agree with those recommendations either. I have a brief here from a human rights QC, who says that lawyers do not believe that that is how the Bill will be seen. In reality, the Government have set themselves on siding wholly with the rights of the adult. The truth, however, is that the rights of the child must also be a paramount consideration. That is the point for those who deal in this area. For instance, the UN convention on human rights and the ECHR both make it clear that the rights of a child to have such parents is the paramount consideration and that no element can override that.
	The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but it is worth saying in return that I have some advice on the ECHR recommendations which is about whether it is necessary to override the rights and freedoms of others, and which would prevail. It continues:
	"This works both ways in the circumstances of this Bill. The child once born has Art. 8 rights which should not be interfered with for the protection of the rights and freedoms of"
	anyone, including
	"same sex parents unless...'necessary'".
	The advice continues:
	"'Necessary' here means something that is clearly required...not...anything that is thought to be socially convenient at any particular time."
	The issue is the well-being of the child, not, in this case, the well-being of the adult concerned.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Iain Duncan Smith: If hon. Members will allow me, I shall make a couple of minutes' progress, then I promise that I shall give way generously. I understand that many hon. Members want to get involved. I have some other advice relating to other cases in which this matter has been raised before. For example, a 1990 custody judgment involving a minor featured this statement about the balancing of rights:
	"The question was not where"
	the individual child
	"would get the better home. The question was: was it demonstrated that the welfare of the child positively demanded the displacement of the parental right."
	That is the key to what we are saying. My view, and I believe that of eminent lawyers, is that this is a balance of rights, and in the end, in the case of human rights, the courts must place as paramount the rights of the child.

Geraldine Smith: To most people outside the House, the right hon. Gentleman is simply talking common sense; they must wonder why we are even having this debate. Is it any wonder that people think politicians are out of touch with ordinary people when we have such debates? It is nonsense to suggest that we should not take into account the need for a father. We are not insisting that single women or lesbians do not have IVF treatment; the only thing we are saying is that there should be a father figure somewhere, who may be a grandfather or another relative. Many single parents depend on father figures, whether they are grandparents or other relatives. It is just pure common sense, and the fact that we are even debating it is ridiculous.

Iain Duncan Smith: The more I listen to the hon. Lady, the more I am in danger of agreeing with her. I have to say that she is right, because we have to come back to the single point at stake; we should not be dancing on the head of a legal pin, but recognising common sense and what most people say. I shall come back to that point. On the legal debate, I simply say that I recognise that when two lawyers are in a room, there will be five or six opinions at a minimum, and one can take it whichever way one likes. I want to return to the question of where the balance lies. That is what the hon. Lady has just said, and I want to move on to it now.

Emily Thornberry: Is there not a central contradiction in the right hon. Gentleman's argument? He began by saying that there are many reasons for discriminating against single parents or lesbian couples where no father is in the picture, but went on to say that we should have legislation on which four or five lawyers will come up with different opinions, when the alternative is something straightforward that cannot in any circumstances be seen as discriminatory by him or anyone else.

Iain Duncan Smith: I do not think it discriminatory to remind people of the importance of the role of the father. Why is that discriminatory? Why does the hon. Lady want to introduce a Bill that is against the idea of fathers in any respect?

Emily Thornberry: rose—

Iain Duncan Smith: With respect, I am going to finish this. The hon. Lady may not like it, but she is going to get it. I have to say to her that that is utter nonsense. Those who signed up to the amendment and who agree with me are simply saying, "Come on, this is common sense." All we are saying is that we should take into consideration the need of a child for a father, not, "If there is no father, you will never get treatment." We are suggesting only that that be considered.  [Interruption.] That is nonsense and the hon. Lady knows it; it is what is in the Bill that counts.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Iain Duncan Smith: I want to move on to some conclusions, as I recognise that others wish to speak.

John Hemming: I have found some of the evidence rather surprising, given that the Human Rights Act 1998 takes precedence in how legislation is interpreted, which means that the legislation could not be properly interpreted as preventing lesbians or single women from receiving help in conceiving. About two minutes ago, I printed out the frequently asked questions section from the website of the Birmingham Women's Health Care NHS Trust assisted conception unit. One question is:
	"Do you treat single women and lesbian couples?"
	The answer is:
	"Yes, these are reviewed on a case-by-case basis as with all our patients."

Iain Duncan Smith: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that technology is a lovely thing, and while the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) may not have liked it from me, she certainly is not going to like it from him.
	All I want to say by way of conclusion to my hon. and right hon. Friends, and in this context to my hon. Friends across the Floor who have signed up to and agree with the amendments, is the following. I simply say that this comes down to the Government, to a balance of judgments, to the rights of the child versus the rights of adults, and to the importance of fathers and the demonstrable body of evidence regarding the effect of absent fathers on children and families.
	We must balance all those considerations. Nothing is absolute. I am not for one moment saying to the Government that I am absolutely right; I am saying that there is a strong level of doubt about the Government's position. They need to argue the case in almost absolute terms, because it is they who are setting out to do away with the existing code. It is they who are doing away with it, not me. I am simply standing for the status quo and arguing—as ever, with legislation—that they must make their case and we will listen to it. However, the case has not been made, and I do not believe that it exists.

Dari Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Iain Duncan Smith: No.
	There might be an element of doubt, but the Government are playing absolutes over this. They say that this provision absolutely contravenes human rights, but I say that it does not and that their evidence is insufficient.

Dari Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am concluding my speech, so if the hon. Lady will forgive me, I want to let other hon. Members get in.
	In regard to the way in which the advisory section should work, I believe that clinics should be sensitive to the needs of all parents, as I have stressed from the beginning. If they are sensitive, when the requirement comes up for people to take cognisance in this way, even gay and lesbian couples will think about it. It is a great prompt to allow people to think, "Yes, maybe we'll have to find some way round that. We'll have to do something". As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) has said, people will try because it is important. That is all that we want. We want people to recognise that fathers have a major role to play, and if they are not around, let us find a way of ensuring that their influence can still be felt.
	What is important for hon. Members tonight is that they do not sit here thinking, "I am right." Rather, everyone in the House should examine their conscience and ask themselves on the basis of the balance of this argument whether they are in any doubt at all. If any Member of the House has a shade of a doubt about whether to support the amendments, I ask them to remember that it is the Government who have made the case for stripping the provision out. We have not made that case. They are the radical proponents here, not us. We are arguing for the status quo. Anyone with a scintilla of doubt in their mind should vote for the amendments, and for the status quo.

Several hon. Members: rose —

The Chairman: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I gently remind hon. Members that we are in Committee and not sitting as a House?

Emily Thornberry: I am grateful to have an opportunity to answer the points made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) in full. If we are talking about scintillas of doubt, confusion or misunderstanding, I certainly believe that that has been begun by his contribution today. On the one hand, he has said that, if the provision is discriminatory, the Human Rights Act 1998 will protect lesbian couples and single women. On the other hand, he says that the Act should not be the machinery—

Iain Duncan Smith: With respect, I did not say that it was discriminatory. I said that it was not discriminatory, and that people are protected by the convention on human rights.

Emily Thornberry: So, on the one hand, the Human Rights Act can deal with any problems that might arise as a result of the wording of the provision, but, on the other, the Act should not be the engine that is pushing the Government to change the law in order to avoid any doubt. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that there are 50 opinions for every lawyer who looks at this question, yet he is against trying to clarify the law.

William Cash: The hon. Lady might care to reflect on the fact that Parliament decides such questions. If we decide to do so by legislating inconsistently with the Human Rights Act, it is crystal clear that we can decide on the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), which would override the provisions of the Human Rights Act provided that we use the words "notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998" in the amendment.

Emily Thornberry: Well, that's all right, then— [Interruption.] I have already pointed out one example of overt discrimination, relating to the eligibility criteria used since November 2006 at Birmingham women's hospital. I am told that questions are frequently asked on the web—understandably, given the published eligibility criteria—as to whether or not lesbian couples and women are being discriminated against.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emily Thornberry: Let me finish the point, and then I will.
	My point is this. Frequently asked questions and the answer are one thing, and an overt piece of discrimination is something else. If there is a lack of clarity in the current law, we have an opportunity to sort it out today. If we were to confirm the need for a father, to add the need for a mother or to move away from the carefully thought out wording proposed by the Government, there would be increased confusion—or, worse, no clear law at all. Many hospitals would have eligibility criteria for IVF treatment as explicit as that published in Birmingham, so we would then have to wrestle with the Human Rights Act.
	Frankly, why, in the 21st century, are we doing this? Why are we putting ourselves in such a position? Why are we saying, "We are not really overtly discriminating against lesbians or single women, but if we are, the Human Rights Act will sort it out, even though the Human Rights Act does not apply at the moment"? Why?  [Interruption.] I always worry when people say that they are only applying common sense, because all too often common sense is a cover for discrimination, narrowness and an inability to face the 21st century.

John Bercow: I personally thought that the hon. Lady provided a compelling example of discrimination and that the attempted rebuttal was profoundly unpersuasive. Is she aware of another example of a lesbian couple who went to an IVF clinic in pursuit of treatment and were told in terms that their best option would be to go to the pub and find themselves a man? If that is not discrimination, it is not entirely obvious what is.

Emily Thornberry: The difficulty is that lesbian couples or single women who wish to have children will be influenced by the current confusion, which will be perpetuated by the amendment suggested by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.

Geraldine Smith: rose—

Emily Thornberry: Let me finish the point first.
	Those people will continue to be confused and will end up believing that IVF is not for them. In that case, they may well go out to a pub and get pregnant or try other informal means of doing so. The disadvantage is simply this: there will be no details of the biological father on the register, yet that will become increasingly important as time goes on. As a result of the amendment, no more fathers will be brought into any more families. That is the central point. It is important to give legal rights to lesbian couples and single women. As far as lesbian couples are concerned, we will then at least have two legally recognised parents instead of just one. What is wrong with that?

Geraldine Smith: I think that my hon. Friend displays a very patronising attitude towards lesbian women. I do not think they will be that confused by someone saying that if they go for IVF treatment they will have to take into consideration the welfare of the child and the need for a father. I would have thought that that was pretty easy to understand; my hon. Friend may think that that is difficult, but surely most reasonable people could understand it. Most people, including lesbians and single women, might well think that that would be a good thing. Unless they absolutely hated men, they might well like a positive male role figure in the child's life. It is good to have a father figure in a child's life. Do colleagues think that it is nonsense to have a male figure involved in a child's upbringing? Might it not be a good thing, if possible, or should it not at least be taken into consideration? I think that some colleagues display the fact that they are way out of touch—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is making a very long intervention, which is bordering on a speech. She was also making it in a direction that made it very difficult for me, and the  Hansard reporters, to hear.

Emily Thornberry: It may well be the case—I certainly hope that it is—that before deciding to have children, people will appreciate that those children must be brought up in loving households. In my experience, based on the lesbian mothers whom I know, before they make the very serious decision to have children in what is not, in all circumstances, the most liberal of worlds, they look to the welfare of the child and to how they can best bring that child up. They do not need a doctor who is not trained in and has no particular experience of these matters to give them counselling on what sort of father figure they should seek, how long that father figure should be involved in their lives, and exactly what "father figure" means in what circumstances. It is not for a doctor to make that sort of decision.
	We should trust the good sense of parents—of women—who do not need to be patronised by anyone, or told how they should bring up children. Motherhood is a serious matter, as is fatherhood, and we should allow parents to make serious decisions themselves.

Tim Loughton: In the hon. Lady's common sense-free world, what takes precedence, the supposed right of adults to have children or the actual right of a child to have access to and enjoyment of both parents during his or her upbringing?

Emily Thornberry: I am very concerned about some of the comments that are being made by Conservative Members about children with single parents. I had only a mother to bring my brothers and me up. I am all right, and my brothers are all right. Of course we relied on other adults who were brought into our lives via our mother and our experience of life: many role models are available to children. Members should not make blanket judgments about children and families, and they should not demonise such a large number of children.

Sandra Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that what purports to be common sense is reminiscent of the "back to basics" campaign of the past? Is not the insistence on a male role model for lesbian couples tantamount to saying that lesbian families are not proper family forms?

Emily Thornberry: That is absolutely right.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Emily Thornberry: As I am nearing the end of my speech, perhaps I should take some interventions now.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being very generous in giving way. Does she agree that the world that she is describing is not so much a common sense-free world as the real world? In the real world, there are bad fathers and sometimes bad mothers. There is no ideal version of the right combination of parents in every circumstance.

Emily Thornberry: I am very glad to hear such good sense.

Patrick Cormack: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. Whatever may be the case in Islington, in Staffordshire it is actually thought normal for a child to have a mother and a father. Does the hon. Lady think it is equally normal for a child to have two mothers?

Emily Thornberry: I think it is wrong to make judgments about families, and to tell one family that they are normal and another family that they are abnormal. I think it wrong for a seven-year-old to be pushed to the edge of a playground and teased or vilified; I think it wrong to vilify single parents; and I think it wrong for the law to discriminate against lesbian couples. In this day and age, we should pass the Bill unamended.

Robert Key: I know that people have asked why on earth we are debating this issue, but I am very glad that we are debating it. I was a member of the Joint Committee that considered the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, as it then was, last year. We recommended
	"that the proposal to remove the 'need for a father'...should be put to a free vote of both Houses of Parliament. To inform that vote, the balance of view of this Committee is that it would be detrimental to remove entirely the requirement to take into account the 'need for a father'."
	I was one of the Committee members who changed their minds during the submission of evidence. A number of peers, of both sexes, also changed their minds. The reason was very straightforward. I was always concerned about the broader principle of our approach to this proposed legislation. The first point was that both Houses of Parliament should set the legal framework and be the de facto bioethics commission for this country, and then once we have set the legal framework it should be for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to regulate—not the regulatory authority for tissue and embryos, which was going to be the body but which the Government then abandoned, but another body, and in terms laid down by Parliament.
	We also made it clear that the final decision on an individual case of in vitro fertilisation treatment should be taken between the mother, the clinician and the husband or partner—that the decision should be taken at the lowest possible level. Our Committee also made it clear that we would take into account the situation regarding civil partnerships and how that had changed attitudes and how adoption and fostering authorities would not discriminate against same-sex couples: the current law does not prevent single-sex couples from adopting or fostering, or, indeed, from having IVF treatment.
	In the evidence we took, it was made clear to us that single-sex couples could provide a warm background that was stable and loving, and that could be a lot better than that provided by an unhappy heterosexual family where the father abused the mother, or came home late and drunk, or hit the children. There was no question in our minds that a single-sex couple could be very good foster parents or adoptive parents. That was not the issue. What was particularly interesting was the question of why on earth this ever came near the Bill in the first place: why was there a need to take it out?
	We discovered the answer to that, too. We did so on 6 June 2007, when the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was interrogating Mr. Ted Webb, the deputy director of scientific development and bioethics at the Department of Health. The hon. Gentleman asked that erudite official why it had been decided to remove the need for a father. Mr. Webb told the Committee:
	"From a legal point of view the legislation at the moment"—
	the new clause that takes out the need for a father—
	"does not actually seem to achieve anything. So we have looked at it from a legalistic point of view more than anything else. It does not prevent treatment being provided to single women or same-sex couples, and also does not seem to fit too comfortably with the Government's wider civil partnerships policy. So I think that is really our starting point for recommending that the need for a father reference is taken out of the legislation".

Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend brings to our attention a remarkable piece of information, and it is a great shame that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is not present to hear it, as, against all the conventions of this House, she has made her speech and pushed off.

The Chairman: Order. In fairness to the hon. Lady, I should say that there is a Division in the Finance Public Bill Committee and she asked my permission to attend that.

Robert Key: I am grateful for that information; the record has been put straight, and I will not go there.
	We also took evidence from a lot of specialists and academics in this area. One of the most interesting evidence sessions involved academics from Oxford, Cambridge and elsewhere. Professor Ann Buchanan of Oxford university was asked about the need for a father. She said that
	"the evidence for the roles of fathers is important,"
	and that she and her colleagues had conducted two major studies which show that father involvement
	"is strongly related to children's later educational attainment. Children with involved fathers are less likely to be in trouble with the police. Father involvement is associated with good parent-child relationships in adolescence. Father involvement protects against adult experiences of welfare and later mental health problems and it applies in different ways to both girls and boys".
	That was pretty convincing, so we then listened on the same day to Professor Susan Golombok, from Cambridge. When asked about the need for a father, she said:
	"In a way, it is common sense...so that fathers who are highly involved with their children, are emotionally available to their children, warm to their children and also exert a reasonable level of discipline have better adjusted children. These children also do better at school and they have better relationships with peers and so it spreads out into their wider social circles. The other side of that coin is that in families where fathers are not very involved or who are anti-social in their behaviour, who are not good parents—begging the question of what that means—the outcomes for their children can be negative. Really, it all comes down to the quality of parenting offered by fathers which makes a difference to outcomes for children."
	That was pretty clear, but on Second Reading—

Evan Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise what Professor Golombok went on to say in the same session? She said:
	"Families are all very different and you find very good relationships in single-parent families and you find two-parent families with bad relationships so I do not think that you can really generalise in that way."
	She continued:
	"What I was trying to say...is that in lesbian mother families where two women are heading the family, the presence of two parents seems to be more important than the fact that one parent is male. It is the relationship rather than the gender."

Robert Key: Yes, and she also said:
	"To my mind, it suggests that the idea that a mother and a father are both a good thing on the whole for children, and also some basic assumption about the structure of family life is undeniable."

Phil Willis: Was that not the very reason why the Committee came to its conclusion regarding two supportive parents? The overwhelming evidence that we got from Professor Golombok and, indeed, from the other academics, whether they were in support of a male figure within the household or whether they were giving evidence on lesbian couples—Golombok is the leading expert on lesbian couples—was that the supportive family unit was important, which is why we made the recommendation that we made.

Robert Key: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who was the distinguished Chairman of the Joint Committee, which came to the conclusion that I started my speech with.

Ian Gibson: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the vote was on that issue, and how it came out the way that the Chairman of the Joint Committee has just described?

Robert Key: Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the vote, I am afraid, but I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman enlightened us.

Ian Gibson: It was seven votes to seven, and the Chairman's casting vote turned it the way it did.

Robert Key: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage—I cannot remember that bit of the story. However, that does not detract from the case I am making.
	My final quote comes from the Second Reading of this Bill in the other place, on 19 November 2007. By this time, the Government had come to a number of conclusions and had rejected some of their earlier proposals. One of the arguments being proposed was that, if we did not do away with the need for a father, that would discriminate against all single mothers. That was attacked head-on by the Archbishop of York, who said:
	"However, there is all the difference in the world between children who find themselves in a single-parent family through bereavement or breakdown of parental relationship, and those who find themselves in that situation by design...If discrimination is indeed the issue here, surely the greater discrimination is in ensuring that a child will never have any chance of knowing its natural father".
	He concluded by saying:
	"The child's right not to be deliberately deprived of a father is greater than any right to commission a child by IVF."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2007; Vol. 696, c.705-6.]

Dawn Primarolo: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that, if single women and lesbian couples are driven away from regulated IVF clinics to other methods in order to have children, their children will never know who their natural father is because they will be outside the protection of the regulation of IVF services?

Robert Key: If the Minister's nightmare were to come true, she would be right, but I do not believe that it is the situation or would be in the future. When I discussed the issue of parenthood among lesbian couples with a lesbian couple who are constituents of mine, they made it clear that this does not feature on their radar screen at all.

Dawn Primarolo: In that case, would the hon. Gentleman like to explain why it was necessary to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to prevent internet access to unscreened sperm for precisely the purpose that we are discussing?

Robert Key: That is a very important issue, but as far as I can see, it has nothing to do with this particular issue. The Science and Technology Committee in the previous Parliament, which was led by the hon. Member for Norwich, North, examined that issue specifically. We made recommendations accordingly, and I was pleased that the Government accepted them.
	In conclusion, I have no desire to discriminate against single mothers, many of whom do an amazing job bringing up wonderful children in as close to a family atmosphere as possible—it is never their desire to do so in this way. I know that many same-sex couples also do an astonishing job and are very loving couples when it comes to fostering and adoption. I just hope that we will consider the offhand way in which, for legalistic reasons, the Government felt it necessary to introduce this entire clause into the Bill. In my judgment, it is simply not necessary and it is causing a great deal of distress to a lot of people. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will simply say to the Government, "Please think again. We think this is a bad idea." I hope that such people will vote against this measure.

Desmond Turner: This is an equalities issue, whether or not anyone tries to deny that, because the provision bites only on lesbian couples. This House has established over recent years a very good and honourable record of ending discrimination on the grounds of sexuality or anything else. If the amendments were to be voted through, the House would be taking a step backwards, and it would clearly be in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Geraldine Smith: The provision does not just affect lesbians; it would also affect heterosexual single women who wish to have a child.

Desmond Turner: Okay, but the arguments have primarily been motivated by the fact that lesbian couples will want to have children; it is they who are at the root of this, and that must be completely wrong.
	What would either a single woman or a lesbian couple have to do? If they were to fulfil the requirements of the current legislation or the requirements that would be in place if the amendments were to succeed, they would have to produce a token father, but there is no guarantee that such a person would have any part in the future of that child. We face a real danger, because there would undoubtedly be cases of women being forced or pressured into entering into informal arrangements, such as going to the pub to look for a likely temporary partner or receiving unlicensed, unregulated sperm, which carries all sorts of hazards to which I would not wish to see women exposed.

Iain Duncan Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman actually read the wording of the original Act that this will amend? Let me read it to him. It says,
	"unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father"—
	to which we would add "and a mother"—
	"and of any other child who may be affected by the birth."
	How does that provision act as an absolute device to refuse treatment?

Desmond Turner: In this instance, the need to take account of something strongly implies the requirement to produce a father figure, and that would be interpreted by many—including several hon. Members—to mean that a father, real or otherwise, would be required.

Julian Lewis: I have a close relative who is a single woman who wishes to have a child by IVF. She is governed by the present regulations, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) simply seeks to preserve. If I thought that what my right hon. Friend proposes would lead to the results that the hon. Gentleman suggests, I would vote with the hon. Gentleman, but it has not. My relative has not had to go to the pub to pick someone up or to do anything that he would not want her to have to do. All she has had to do is take account of these factors. Account has been taken and she has been allowed to proceed. Speaking for myself, I hope with all my heart that she is successful.

Desmond Turner: I endorse that entirely, and I am glad that the system has worked in her case. However, it is much more realistic to retain the present wording of the Bill about supportive parenting, as that is much more important. We no longer live in a "Janet and John" world where everybody has an ideal father and an ideal mother. Let us be honest and admit that many fathers have been damaging. How many single parents are left without a supportive father for their child because the natural father has deserted them, often with associated domestic violence? I know of far more cases in which that is true than of lesbian couples having IVF.
	If we follow the provisions of the Bill, we stand to guarantee supportive parenting. We are almost assured that that child will have two parents. Not only that, but should anything happen to one of those parents, there will be another clearly identified parent with parental rights to look after the child. I can see nothing wrong with that: it is entirely logical.
	We do not apply such strictures to same-sex adoption. We have legislated for that and we allow lesbian couples to adopt, and be responsible for the upbringing of a child, without a father. Why should it be any different for a child produced by IVF?

Ian Gibson: There is another inconsistency. If a woman has tubal or hormonal therapy for infertility problems, no one asks questions about parenthood. That only happens when it comes to IVF, which suggests that there is an element of discrimination behind this.

Desmond Turner: I agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for his intervention.

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman made the point that we do not make such provisions for adoption. He should recognise that adoption is a spurious example, because to go and adopt a child requires huge amounts of exhaustive inquiry into one's background, social position and what one does. Far more requirements are placed on someone who wishes to adopt than on someone in the circumstances that we are discussing. With respect, I would not use that example if I were the hon. Gentleman.

Desmond Turner: The situations are entirely analogous, because they both involve the creation of a family with a child and two parents—in this case, with supportive parents. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Greg Clark: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been misled about what is possible now. Let me add to the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). This weekend, I visited a lesbian couple who are friends of mine in my constituency. They are expecting a child within the next three months who was conceived under the present legislation, which has been entirely permissive in allowing them to do that. I wish them well.

Desmond Turner: I am very glad of that, but the hon. Gentleman is providing an example that illustrates the inadequacy of the wording of the present Act and the superiority of the wording in the Bill.

Greg Clark: rose—

Desmond Turner: No, once is enough. The essential thing is supportive parenting. It does not matter whether that supportive parenting is delivered by a male or a female.

Brian Iddon: It is important that we put on the record what Baroness Deech, who after all has some knowledge of such things, said in the other place. She said:
	"In the last year of statistics, over 2,000 women who were single or lesbian accessed IVF treatment".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2008; Vol. 698, c. 60.]
	So, what people have said about access being available is correct. However, I support my hon. Friend as there is postcode discrimination in the country. That is why I support the Bill as it stands.

Desmond Turner: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The point about postcode discrimination is valid. We have heard about the example from Birmingham, and there will be many others. If we resist the amendments and stand by the Bill, we will eliminate that.

Phil Willis: On discrimination, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the real discrimination takes place in the primary care trusts, which limit the number of treatments for IVF in different ways across the country? If we had proper access to IVF treatment that was fair and equitable across the whole of Great Britain, that would achieve more than our spending hours debating angels dancing on the head of a pin, as we are at the moment.

Desmond Turner: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I deplore the postcode discrimination in carrying out the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommendations on the provision of IVF, but that is another can of worms. I am simply concentrating on the matter before us this afternoon. In all earnestness, I ask hon. Members to resist the amendments. They are discriminatory in practice, whether that is the intention or not, and would perhaps lead to a worse situation than the Bill would. I therefore ask hon. Members to resist them.

Mark Simmonds: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). The one issue on which he was absolutely correct is the disparity in PCT provision of IVF treatment, which causes a lot of angst and concern across the country. Something needs to be done about that. However, he was completely incorrect to say that the terms of the original clause in the 1990 Act, the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and me, and those proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) are discriminatory. They are clearly not. Those Labour Members who have tried to defend the Government's position are skating on very thin ice and dancing on the head of a pin, as I hope to demonstrate in my remarks.
	No one disputes that that 1990 Act has worked well. It was thoroughly thought through, and it was a detailed and widely debated provision. It was agreed at the time that the need for a father was an important factor in the welfare of a child. Both the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown seem to be suggesting that we should ignore the welfare of the child, but that should always be a cornerstone of this aspect of the Bill.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made a very knowledgeable, considered and well-argued speech. He talked about the significance of the need for a father, and I shall expand on that later. He was also right to say that the amendments under consideration do not contravene human rights legislation, but does the need for a mother have to be made explicit in amendments Nos. 21 and 22? Is not that need already explicit in the fact that it is a would-be mother who presents herself for treatment?
	I hope that it will help the Committee if I explain what my amendments Nos. 12 and 13 set out to do.

John Pugh: Is there not another side to the argument? The hon. Gentleman warns about neglecting the needs of the child, but does he agree that no one who supports a clause that calls for supportive parenting can be called neglectful of the needs of the child?

Mark Simmonds: That is why my amendments would not remove the phrase "supportive parenting" from the Bill. I do not criticise those words, and that is why I did not put my name to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. My amendments would retain the phrase "supportive parenting", reinstate the need for a father and add a requirement for a "male role model". I shall explain why I have phrased those amendments like that.
	My amendments recognise that supportive parenting needs to be provided, and that various types of family unit exist. It is also important that clinics disseminate information on these matters, and my amendments would also reinstate the need to consider the role of a father or, in the absence of such a person, a male role model. The amendments would thereby emphasise the importance of a father, while at the same time reflecting what happens in practice in clinics now.
	John Parsons is the lead consultant at the assisted conception unit at King's college hospital. He said:
	"We like to know there will be men in these children's lives. They don't have to have a father, but they should at least have a male influence in their lives."
	Mr. Parsons is a clinician who provides fertility treatment every day, and who in essence is putting into practice the principle of my amendments.

Andrew Slaughter: As proposed, the need for a father or for a male role model is an additional requirement to the 1990 Act. It is clearly aimed at single women or lesbian couples and is therefore an additional burden on them. How can that not be discriminatory? The hon. Gentleman asserts that that is not, but what is his evidence?

Mark Simmonds: First, the evidence is that that requirement is sought in clinics already, as I have said. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence—we have heard none today—that same-sex couples and single mothers are not accessing IVF treatment. They are doing so, and my amendments propose that clinics look for a male role model, as distinct from just a female one.
	Why have I put that proposal in my amendments? Many research papers—they are too numerous to quote, but they include the excellent work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and his think-tank—make clear the unique contribution made by the father. Fathers contribute academically, psychologically and socially, and also build confidence and self-esteem in their offspring. Indeed, the importance of the father is now almost uncontested in social research. It is important that children have the knowledge that engenders respect for and understanding of the opposite sex.
	That understanding has been challenging enough for many of us who have lived with members of the opposite sex for most of our lives, and one can imagine how challenging it must be for people who have not. We in the Committee have to admit there is a problem in this country, where familial breakdown has led to many serious social problems such as crime, truancy, an over-reliance on the state and poor parenting skills. Social research has found that the involvement, or lack of it, of the father, not the mother, is the key determinant of teenage behavioural problems. Unbelievably, 24 per cent. of children in this country are growing up in families without a live-in father.
	These amendments are not anti same-sex couples, nor anti single mothers. Of course, children can and do thrive in loving families in both same-sex and single mother households, often in very difficult circumstances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) rightly said, single mothers and same-sex couples need to be congratulated on doing such a superb job.
	The second important issue—the rationale that was given for amending the 1990 Act—is that society and social attitudes have moved on in the 18 years since that Act was passed. That is generally and generically true, but they have not moved on in this matter. I am very reluctant to quote polls, because obviously, they often reflect the question that is asked, but 77 per cent. of people recognise the importance of the need for a father. Interestingly, the figure rises to 84 per cent. among 18 to 24-year-olds.

Dawn Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee why he wants to put into legislation proposals that he then expects no one to take any notice of, to ensure that discrimination does not occur against lesbian couples and single women?

Mark Simmonds: That intervention was very confusing; logically, it is an argument for taking out in totality reference to the need for a father under the 1990 Act. In practice, that condition has made absolutely no difference to access to treatment for same-sex couples and single mothers.

Iain Duncan Smith: I wonder whether another response to the right hon. Lady would be very simply that we are not are seeking to remove something; she is. The Government are ripping it out; we are trying to put it back, so the Opposition are on the side of the status quo.

Mark Simmonds: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury forensically deconstructed the Government's logic and case for removing the consideration of the need for a father and merely inserting the phrase "supportive parenting".

David Burrowes: Is not the burden on the Government to prove to us that their proposal to remove the requirement to consider the child's need for a father benefits that child's welfare?

Mark Simmonds: Absolutely, and if there were evidence to show a detrimental impact on the child's welfare and if evidence had proved discrimination in access to IVF treatment, the Government might have a stronger case than at the moment, but none of those things has been proved.

Edward Vaizey: I am afraid that I do not understand the logic of my hon. Friend's position. If he is saying that the provision on the need for a father has not worked, what is the point of keeping it in the Bill?

Mark Simmonds: That is why I have tabled my amendments, which not only maintain the need for a father but extend that requirement to include male role models. As I have just said, that would mean that the current practice in clinics would continue, while ensuring that the proposal on supportive parenting was included. The amendments would thus try to address the current disparity and difference of approach adopted by parenting units.

Lynne Jones: Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee recognise that, in taking decisions, the welfare of the child is paramount. Opposition Members have gone out of their way to emphasise that the need for a father has not prevented lesbian couples or single women from getting access to IVF. So in what circumstances can the hon. Gentleman envisage that such people might be turned down? What is his definition of a father role model?

Mark Simmonds: The need for a father or a male role model ensures that the welfare of the child can be maximised, by allowing access to the benefits of having a male role model or a father figure.  [ Interruption. ]

Edward Vaizey: Given my hon. Friend's answer to my earlier intervention, he appears to be saying that he is attempting to strengthen the clause. Therefore, is not the logic of his position that he intends the clause to make it more difficult for lesbians and single parents to access IVF? Would not the male role model part of his proposal encourage fraud? Numerous lesbian couples could attend clinics with their hired male role model for the day. Surely, that would be totally counter-productive.

Mark Simmonds: I do not agree with that analysis at all, because at present, when there is no direct father figure, a male role model such as a grandfather may be used.

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Simmonds: Let me make some progress and answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey). In my amendments, I am simply trying to clarify exactly what happens at the moment with regard to the consideration of the need for a father.

Pete Wishart: rose—

Mark Simmonds: I should like to make some progress. As Lord Darzi confirmed in the other place, there is no evidence that single-sex couples or single women who present themselves for fertility treatment have been disadvantaged or faced barriers to treatment. Let me put the matter in context: in 2006, there were only 775 IVF treatment cycles, of which less than 2 per cent. were for single women or single-sex couples.
	Indeed, statistics from the King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust show that of the 6,000 patients treated between 1995 and 2004, 500 gave rise to "welfare of the child" considerations, and 28 were refused treatment. Eight of them were refused treatment because of psychiatric problems, four because of virus infections, and two because previous children were wards of court. There were other issues, too, such as drug or alcohol abuse, or the fact that partners were in prison. There was only one case in which a single woman was refused treatment, and that was because of physical problems. There were two cases in which same-sex couples were refused treatment because of concerns about their relationship. None of the refusals was due to the fact that individuals were single or in same-sex relationships. Those statistics will be replicated across the country. They demonstrate that single women and same-sex couples do not face barriers to accessing treatment under the provisions of the 1990 Act.

Tony Wright: Does not what the hon. Gentleman says, and indeed do not all our exchanges this afternoon, show only one thing—that in practice it will make no difference at all what wording is used?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point, but it is important that, through the Bill, we send a message to the country that fathers are important to the welfare of the child, as we have done since 1990.

Glenda Jackson: rose—

Mark Simmonds: Let me make some progress. The Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill concluded that there was
	"little evidence that the existing provisions have caused harm"—
	a point that I made—and it said that it may be
	"detrimental to remove...the 'need for a father'."

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Simmonds: May I make some progress? I shall be happy to give way to my hon. Friend later.

Glenda Jackson: I hope that the central message that the hon. Gentleman wishes to send to the country will be picked up by all those fathers who are being pursued by the Child Support Agency; they are clearly failing to be fathers to their children. Is that the message that he hopes will be sent?

Mark Simmonds: Interestingly enough, I was just about to come on to that point. I agree with the hon. Lady, and I support what she says. There is to be an end to anonymity for sperm donors; divorce courts are to ensure that contact with both parents is seen as beneficial; donor children are to have every opportunity to establish their origins; the Government have a policy to extend, promote and encourage paternity leave; and the Department for Work and Pensions has said:
	"Fathers and mothers matter to children's development. Father-child relationships...have profound and wide ranging impacts on children".
	It is odd, inconsistent, incompatible and paradoxical that the Government are promoting those policies on the one hand but wish to remove the need for a father to be considered prior to IVF on the other.

Pete Wishart: I am genuinely interested in the description of a "male role model". The hon. Gentleman mentioned grandparents when he was challenged about who qualified for that lofty position. Who else qualifies as a male role model? Celebrities, such as David Beckham, Andy Murray, or pop stars? I do not know who qualifies for the position.

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman is being facetious. It is not for Parliament to detail a list of male role models; that is up to clinicians on the ground. I would suggest that the role model should be a close family member. By removing the provision, the Government are showing a disregard for the importance of fathers.

John Bercow: The logical corollary of my hon. Friend arguing that account must be taken of the role of the father is that the applicant's case will be damaged if there is no evidence of such a role. Does my hon. Friend not think it rather peculiar so to argue, when the only compelling academic evidence that exists shows that there is no detriment to the child who is brought up by lesbian parents?

Mark Simmonds: I do not agree with the basis of my hon. Friend's argument or the point that he makes. I would argue the opposite: it is very important that there is consideration of the need for a father or a male role model when clinics decide whether to provide IVF treatment. As I pointed out earlier, the HFEA guidance makes it unlawful to discriminate against patients on the ground of sexual orientation, so that point does not apply.
	The amendments are not discriminatory and apply to all patients. It is right for clinics to have the right to refuse treatment under some circumstances, whether it be mental instability or a history of child abuse or drug abuse. It is not correct to say, as some hon. Members have argued, that the retention of the reference to a father would drive people away from regulated services and the quality and safety assurances that those provide. As evidenced earlier, single women and same-sex couples have not faced barriers, and I do not see why the amendments proposed by me or by my right hon. Friend will change that.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who more than anyone else has proved to the Committee why getting rid of the reference to the need for a father, or not bringing it back, is the right decision. He has also proved that the whole House can unite around the compromise on the need for supportive parenting— [Interruption.] I hope the whole House will unite around it. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that once we start to create tight definitions about a role model, we encounter all sorts of problems. No doubt the hon. Gentleman, who is a sensible Front-Bench spokesperson, would agree that trying—

Sylvia Heal: Order. This is an intervention.

Mark Simmonds: I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. The Bill as drafted represents a decision by the state to remove recognition of the importance of a father. What I am proposing in the amendments retains the need for consideration of supportive parenting and reinstates the importance of the need for a father or male role model. The amendments are designed to retain a male influence in a child's upbringing, providing a balanced outlook for society and ensuring that the country understands that the House of Commons still values the role that fathers or male role models should play in the welfare of children. I hope the Committee will support the amendments later.

Dawn Primarolo: The need for a father provision has provoked much debate here and in another place. It is important to remember the people on whom the provision has an impact. It could very well be a practical impediment to obtaining treatment. Contrary to what some Members are saying—that it has never prevented people from receiving treatment—we have heard of same-sex couples who have been refused treatment on the grounds of their sexuality. If the Committee were to reaffirm that today, we could realistically expect that position to continue and, most likely, worsen if it became endorsed as the current view of Parliament. It is a question not just of access, but of equitable access.
	When providing treatment under the 1990 Act, a clinician is required to take into account the welfare of the child, including the child's need for a father. The requirement to consider a child's need for a father is removed by the Bill and replaced by a requirement for a clinician to take into account the welfare of the child, including the child's need for supportive parenting. That goes to the heart of the issue with which the Committee is struggling in this debate. How do we define "supportive parenting"? The Conservatives argue that we should include wording, which we know will have no meaning or practical effect, in legislation that is only about IVF so that we can send a wider message to the whole population about family structures. The Bill is not the right place to do that, and it is not acceptable that the House should do it.

Gerald Howarth: What research has been carried out by the Minister's Department or anyone else into the likely effect on children of being brought into the world in what some of us would regard as an unnatural relationship? In the Dog and Partridge in Yateley, or the Thatched Cottage in Cove, a natural relationship is considered to comprise a mother and father. What evidence does the Minister have whether children brought up in the unnatural environment in question will prosper or suffer as a consequence?

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, which relates to my next point. In his opening remarks, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) made assertions about behaviour in all families on the basis of evidence from families that had broken down. With no support or evidence, the right hon. Gentleman sought to advance the argument that the children whom we are discussing would suffer a certain fate.
	The evidence, however, is available. Social research from Murray, Golombok and Brewaeys shows that children of same-sex couples develop emotionally and psychologically in a similar way to children born of heterosexual donor-inseminated couples. What counts is the quality of parenting.

Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not give way. Just a moment.
	Quality of parenting will make the difference to the child's development. The Committee needs to face that proposition in considering the arguments.

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Iain Duncan Smith: As the Minister may recall, I said that the body of evidence on that issue was not yet good enough for her to make any judgment whatever. I did not draw any inference; I simply said that she could not draw on the evidence and nor could I.
	However, the point that I wanted to make to her was this: the wording of the Bill is far more complex than the simple wording that we wish to put back in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) got caught up in the issue of what a role model is. What can we expect from clinicians as they start to define the whole issue of what is or is not supportive parenting? We are putting a huge burden on them. There should be simplicity—a statement about the role of a father. That is easy to do.

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He uses so-called evidence about family structure, which is not relevant to this debate. However, when the evidence that such families involve good parents and that the children have no problems is put to him, he does not want to consider it. Then he asserts that there is no discrimination in respect of the need for a father and that that provision should be put back in the Bill because it is important—even though he says that it is completely ignored in the debate, a contention that I dispute.

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman's logic does not bear scrutiny.

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: If the right hon. Gentleman will be patient and let me finish my response to his intervention, I shall be happy to let him intervene again. However, I say to him that when he is in a hole, he should stop digging.

Iain Duncan Smith: I have to say that I hope the right hon. Lady does not emerge out of her hole, but here we go. She is of course eliding two different things. I referred to her so-called data about same-sex couples. I said that there was no real body of evidence on them yet, and that we should infer nothing about them either way. However, in respect of the vast bulk of couples—heterosexual couples—who have IVF, there is a huge amount of evidence concerning the absence of fathers and its effect on families. The right hon. Lady can do whatever she likes, but she cannot run away from that. The body of evidence shows that the absence of fathers has a detrimental effect on children, regardless of family income. The right hon. Lady does not have a way out of that.

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman wants to start with a different proposition entirely from that of the Government. It is the view of the Government that all parents assessed for treatment would be assumed to be supportive parents unless there were evidence to the contrary—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: I will just make this point, and then I shall take interventions.
	A supportive parent would be willing and able to make a commitment to safeguard and promote the child's health, development and welfare and to provide direction and guidance in a manner appropriate to the age and development of the child. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green wants to start with the proposition that we should consider them to be bad parents unless we give them an additional test.

Phil Wilson: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; I just want a point of information. My problem with the issue concerns not the parents, but the child. I know that the child has a right, at the age of 18, to find out who its father is, but what if the child decides it has a need for a father at the age of 10 or 12? What kind of support mechanisms will be in place to ensure that that child will have access to its father?

Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend knows, the Bill introduces a provision to ensure that the child will have access at the age of 18, or 16 if necessary, to the details of their natural father. Indeed, if couples are driven away from the regulated service, the child will never know those details. The parents have the responsibility to make clear to that child their relationship with either parent and the possibility of an absent natural father. It is made clear during the counselling and access to IVF treatment that that is a matter for the parents. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's proposition that it is crucial in this process that parents are motivated by what is best for the child and the child's development, which includes information about whether they were the result of a donor insemination and about the progress being made.

Bernard Jenkin: I commend the way in which the right hon. Lady has treated this debate, and the other debates, but I think she is foundering on this issue. Her case rests on the interpretation of good parenting. Would she regard it as acceptable that good parenting should include those who want to deny the role of fathers or male role models? Men and women are different and they provide different role models to children. Both role models are necessary for the upbringing of children. That is all that the present legislation attempts to say, and what the Bill would remove—wrongly, in my view.

Dawn Primarolo: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the quality of parenting being crucial. The removal of the requirement to take into account the child's need for a father is not about doing away with fathers or doing anything that does not recognise the important role that fathers can and do play in the upbringing of children. We are ensuring that the law reflects current practice and family set-ups, and current legislation on human rights and discrimination. The wording in it should have meaning for those who have to make decisions on whether or not the child, as a result of IVF, is going to have quality parenting and support.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: I give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson).

Iris Robinson: I note that the Minister places great importance on the quality of parenting. Can she envisage, down the road, a child going to primary school and being collected by two females or two males, and the bullying and abuse to which such children will be exposed—or going into their parents' bedroom, as is natural for a child to do, and finding two women or two men making love?

Dawn Primarolo: With respect, I do not think that those comments have any place in the debate. Children are loved by many adults in families, extended families and neighbourhoods. It is crucial to consider the safety and nurture of the child.

John Bercow: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) has passionate views, and I respect her integrity on the matter, but I happen to disagree with her. I put it to the Minister that the hon. Lady's argument is not simply against gay couples having access to IVF treatment but against gay adoption, the legal age of consent and gay equality per se.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It might be appropriate if we reverted to the content of the amendment that is currently under discussion.

Dawn Primarolo: I believe that the debate would be improved if all hon. Members were direct and open about their views on the subject. The hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) should be given credit for being one of the few who is brutally honest about her views and expresses them in the Chamber. I hope that other hon. Members will do that instead of trying to conceal their arguments.

Dari Taylor: We are all seriously passionate about getting the matter right. We want to get it right because the welfare of the child is crucial to us all. However, the research has been repeated time and again, and I cannot understand why the Committee is so unprepared to hear what MacCallum and Golombok are saying. The conclusions of their research, "Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence", are clear. Being without a resident father from infancy does not seem to have had negative consequences for children. There is no evidence that the mother's sexual orientation influences parent-child interaction or the child's socio-emotional development. Those statements are clear and made by people who are not pushing a line. They are conducting research and reporting fairly and objectively. Why is the Committee so resistant to listening to them?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend makes her point passionately, as she has done in previous debates. The Committee is not saying that we do not need fathers; we are broadening our understanding to recognise the quality of parenting and the impact on the child, which should be paramount at all stages.

Geraldine Smith: rose—

Gary Streeter: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Let me make a little progress, and then of course I will take more interventions. However, I am conscious of time.
	The amendments would have a wide-ranging, discriminating effect on access to treatment for single women and same-sex couples. Instead of being in the child's interests, they would drive single women and same-sex couples away from the safety of the regulated services. That is a retrograde step, which we should not risk: every hon. Member who has spoken has said that ensuring the safety and nurture of the child is paramount. The legislation should be fair to all people who seek treatment, whether they are in same-sex couples, single women or in heterosexual couples. If the provision specifying the need for a father or the equivalent was retained, the legislation would place additional burdens on single women and same-sex female couples. That is the point that we need to address, albeit in the context of there being no evidence to suggest that such women make bad parents and should therefore be required to take additional steps.

Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Gary Streeter: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No, I would like to make some progress.
	The Bill requires a clinician to take into account the welfare of the child, including that child's need for supportive parenting. That is based on the fact that, as I have repeatedly said, the quality of parenting makes the most difference, not the gender of the parents per se. That is why the Bill requires the consideration of the child's need for supportive parenting, not the gender of the parents. The Bill strikes the correct balance between protecting the interests of the child to be born by requiring that their welfare is considered, and the right to supportive parenting.

Gary Streeter: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not.
	Reference has been made to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Bill. The Committee recommended that
	"'(including the need of that child for a father)' should be retained but in an amended form in a way that makes clear it is capable of being interpreted as the 'need for a second parent' in line with the parenthood provisions currently in Part 3 of the draft Bill. In making this recommendation, we do not seek to discriminate against single women seeking treatment".
	The Joint Committee recommended an amended version, but its deliberations and recommendations also showed the difficulty of settling on different definitions. Therefore, the suggestions in the Bill as amended provide for that quality parenting. We intend to strike the correct balance between protecting the child and providing those supportive arrangements.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who tabled amendments Nos. 12 and 13, has made thoughtful contributions throughout this debate, but he has fallen into his own trap. He seeks to replace consideration of the need for a father by proposing that clinicians should take into account the child's need for supportive parenting—that is what the Bill says now—and a father or male role model. However, he fails to tell us how. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 do not say that all families should have a father; in fact, if anything, they suggest that any male role model could easily replace a father. Surely that is not the intention of the Committee.
	The hon. Gentleman's amendments more or less say that any man will do, which does not fit with the considerations of quality parenting. Will women who are not being treated with a man have to bring one along for the sake of it? Is that what is being suggested? Evidence was provided to the Select Committee on Science and Technology of women having to bring along a letter signed by a man—any man. Is that what we want? The hon. Gentleman advanced the main point in his argument. This issue is about reflecting the concept of quality of parenting, recognising the diversity of families and judging clearly whether individuals can provide the necessary parenting. That has to be right.
	Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which were tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and are supported by others, would require clinicians to take into account the need of any resulting child for a father and a mother. A general argument against both of the amendments is that they would be discriminatory because, as with the provision on the need for a father, they would create an additional hurdle for female couples and single women who seek treatment. Given the position of this House and the Government on civil partnerships and on adoption by same-sex couples, in my view as a Minister I would say it was wholly inappropriate to retain that additional, discriminatory burden.
	Those who oppose the removal of the need for a father provision talk about it not making any difference anyway. They want a provision in the Bill to send a signal about family structures, but then say that no one should take any notice of it. That cannot be right. Some hon. Members have commented that the current provision does not prevent single women and same-sex couples from accessing treatment and say that it therefore does no harm. That assertion has been challenged repeatedly in today's debate, and I challenge it. I say to the Committee that there is an impact and that we should not allow that discrimination to continue.

Geraldine Smith: People often say that politicians do not listen. Have the Government consulted on this change? If so, what was the response from the public?

Dawn Primarolo: Yes, we did consult on the change, and the full consultation was published. My hon. Friend follows these matters closely, so I am sure that she will have studied it in some depth and seen the arguments for and against the proposal. The House must also consider those arguments and how to respond. It is one thing for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and clinics to interpret a provision that was passed almost 20 years ago in a way that allows same-sex couples and single women to access treatment, but it is quite another thing for such an interpretation to continue if the position is reaffirmed by this House in 2008.

Gary Streeter: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not.
	Including a reference to the need for a father or for a male role model would send the message from Parliament that we want to return to what was the position when the 1990 Act was introduced, when additional tests were imposed on certain groups of people. Such a provision would not be so harmless or meaningless if it were reintroduced. Those Opposition Members who had said that they hoped these matters would not affect their family or friends would need to think again.

Gary Streeter: Let me clarify the Government's position. Does the Minister believe that a child in a family unit containing a mother and a father has any advantage compared with a child in a family unit with two mums—supposing that all the parents are loving? Are the Government really saying that there is no advantage in having a loving mother and father compared with two loving parents who are both female?

Dawn Primarolo: No, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the Government's position. He is seeking to use a particular provision on access to IVF treatment to argue a general position that he knows full well is not universally accepted by all our communities. In my humble opinion, it is the duty of the House to ensure that we reflect all those who make up our communities, and all the family units. When deciding whether people can have access to IVF treatment, the absolute cornerstone must be the quality of the parenting. That is precisely what the Government are seeking to take into account.
	It is nonsensical to say that it is better for a child to have a mother and a father, while also arguing that the amendments would not prevent people from accessing treatment. The need for a father provision would be discriminatory, if it were reinserted. In order to protect the interests of same-sex couples and single women, and their donor-conceived children, it is important that this legislation should be passed unamended, to ensure that it is fair, that it offers equitable access and that it recognises the complexities of the Britain we live in today.

Evan Harris: On these Benches—

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. I do not wish to detain the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), but I should like to point out that we have just over an hour left for this part of the debate. Do you have any power to influence the length of speeches? Those of us who take one particular view have had no opportunity to place it in this debate.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is hardly a point of order for the Chair, but, as always, I hope that Members, knowing the pressure of time, will be as concise as possible in their remarks. More to the point, perhaps, I hope that Members who are making interventions will not use them to make speeches.

Evan Harris: May I say to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that I am certainly aware of the issue that he has raised? There are people behind me on the Liberal Democrat Benches who want to speak, and there is a dilemma about whether to take interventions, which I hope I shall get through.
	The Liberal Democrats have a party policy against unjustified discrimination, such as the inclusion of a provision in the Bill for the need for a father. I hope to show that the proposal is discriminatory and unjustified. This is a free vote issue for the Liberal Democrats as well, however. Everyone has a personal view on the matter, and I am sure that there will be many splits within parties. I am reminded that, when Woody Allen was asked for his personal view on lesbian parents, he said that he did not understand how children survived with even one mother, let alone two. Unusually, I think that he was wrong, because the evidence is clear that children in such families do very well. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) smiling at that.
	I agree with the Minister that the removal of the need for a father provision from the Bill had nothing to do with attacking fathers or fatherhood, which is a ridiculous allegation, or with not wanting to tackle the problem of broken homes. I certainly recognise that problem and the consequences that it has for children, but the legislation is not about broken homes—in fact, it is about precisely the opposite. It is about a couple or an individual seeking to create a family and a home, and taking a serious decision to undergo treatment, which is not a decision to be undergone lightly. Many children are brought into the world in an unplanned moment, but the provision deals with people who are making a specific decision to create a family. It is astonishing that it should be seen as some kind of an attack on families.
	The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) very effectively pointed out that the need for a father provision has not brought a single extra father into a family, or retained a man in a family— [ Interruption. ] I thought that my mentioning her might make her stay in the Chamber; obviously not. Perhaps she has another Division to attend.
	I just do not understand why anyone believes that young men who act irresponsibly and abandon their partners and families are suddenly going to read the statute on IVF treatment—these men are usually fertile—and decide to mend their ways. I have to say that I cannot see that happening.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is not about bringing more fathers into families, but about state recognition of the importance of fatherhood within families? If this provision goes through unamended, we will send out the message that it does not matter whether there is a father, while at the same time Government policy says that it does.

Evan Harris: I have always taken the view that statute should not be used simply to send out a message, as there are other ways of sending out messages. Politicians with skill—the hon. Gentleman is one of them—can find other ways.
	The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green provided us with statistics about broken families. He then tried to argue—I think rightly—that he did not intend his amendment to affect lesbian families or those of solo parents. However, in an intervention on the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) corrected that, stating that the amendment would affect not only lesbian families, but those of solo parents as well.

Geraldine Smith: The intention behind the amendment is to ensure that the welfare of the child, rather than the desires of adults, is paramount.

Evan Harris: I will come on to the welfare of the child in a few moments, which is probably the easiest way to deal with the hon. Lady's intervention.
	We must remember the origin of the provision. In 1990, when this provision was put into the Bill, one of our Houses had voted by a majority of just one not to ban unmarried couples from accessing regulated IVF therapy. The sort of thinking going on at that time by some hon. Members here and, indeed, in the other place, was entirely different from that of today. It would be unthinkable for us to pass legislation to prevent unmarried couples from accessing IVF.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) should, I think, concede that his amendment has no advantages over that proposed by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, and it has many disadvantages. One disadvantage was pointed out in a penetrating intervention by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), who argued that if the provision had any effect it would be a bad one, and that if it did not have an effect it would be pointless.
	A doctor who would like to see male role models has been cited—this issue will crop up again in the debate on the next group of amendments. If medical opinion is to be cited, however, it is sensible to look at consensus medical opinion rather than picking out one particular doctor—I can pick out one doctor very easily, and that person might have two opinions. We should look at what the British Medical Association thinks. It represents doctors, so—as far as these things go—it is a relatively democratic policy-making body. Another body is the British Fertility Society, which represents all the doctors working in that area. It wants shot of the need for a father provision, because it would tempt doctors to discriminate, which they do not want to do. It thinks that such a provision would be anachronistic, and it would be appalled if the House allowed colleagues to discriminate.

Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman has said that those organisations want shot of the advisory provisions, but have not the Government stumbled into an even worse case, as their proposals now ask doctors to interpret in a way that they did not have to under the "father" provision? Now they have to interpret what the definition of supporting parenting really means for them.

Evan Harris: Doctors will have to do that, which is why the HFEA produces a code of practice. It is easy to set out the code in a non-discriminatory, light-touch way. I believe that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green is sincere in proposing his amendment. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness either, but it struck me that there are political aspects behind the amendment. I do not think that his heart is really in the idea of a male role model or asking a gynaecologist, of all people, to decide who a male role model should be.
	We need to recognise that there is a problem with any sort of test. Fertile individuals are not required to pass a parenting test by the state before becoming pregnant, so why should the infertile? Many people, including the BMA, would argue that even the Government's wording goes too far in creating a hurdle for the infertile to cross, which the fertile do not have to. Many or almost all of the unsatisfactory families, if I may put it that way, come from the fertile part of the population, not from infertile people seeking infertility treatment.

William Cash: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech with interest. Can he explain why the part of the Bill entitled "Parenthood in cases involving assisted reproduction" contains an entire section on the meaning of "father" and on "fatherhood conditions"? Is he suggesting, as I suspect that the Minister is, that those words should be replaced by the words "supportive parenting"? That would not work, would it?

Evan Harris: I am afraid that I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's point, and I do not know which part of the Bill he is referring to. I therefore do not want to be drawn into a discussion, but hopefully the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to pursue the matter further.
	There are really only two questions to be asked. The first is whether the discrimination—or the measure—is justified. The research is clear and is summarised by the British Medical Association, which says that there is no evidence that children do badly in families of that kind. According to the BMA,
	"Social research on children born to these families has given similar findings to those children born to solo mothers. Their emotional and psychological development is comparable to children born of donor insemination to two heterosexual parents. In fact, the second female parent often has greater parent-child interaction than do the fathers in the heterosexual couples."
	The reference for that quotation is one of those cited by the Minister—I know that the same briefing has been sent to all Members. Murray and Golombok made the results of their research very clear. They also looked into the question of solo mothers, and recognised the difference between different types of mothers on their own. Widows are different from young women who have been abandoned by the fathers of their children and who are living in poverty. Solo parents are often well-resourced, given that they often have to obtain private treatment. They often have established careers, and do not have partners. They are entirely different from families of the kind that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has examined in great detail during his tours around the country.

Tony Wright: One thing troubles me. The hon. Gentleman has constantly referred to the question of treatment. The word "treatment" usually suggests the existence of an illness. What I am not clear about is whether the absence of a child constitutes an illness in the case of single-sex couples.

Evan Harris: There is a philosophical discussion to be had about what is the nature of illness and of treatment. I see that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group of infertility, is present. I know that she has had long arguments with primary care trusts about whether they should provide such treatment. It is not easy to decide that matter now, but it should be noted that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which considers those issues and considers priorities relating to fertility and non-fertility, recognises that infertility is a condition that requires treatment. I think it reasonable to say that donor insemination for lesbian couples should be allowed, particularly because it is cheaper than in vitro fertilisation. In fact, I think that the situation would be legally questionable if it were not. I hope that I have addressed the hon. Gentleman's point, even if I have not satisfied him.
	I want briefly to deal with the evidence given to the Joint Committee by Professor Golombok. I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), but I do not think that one of the many quotations that he read out was exactly the right quotation. In the evidence session of 27 June, Professor Golombok said
	"these greater difficulties for children in one-parent homes are very much associated with the circumstances of being in a one-parent family rather than just whether or not there is a father present. For example, a drop in income, lack of social support for the family, a disrupted relationship with the father with whom they had often spent many years and separation from that father, and moving into stepfamilies. There are all kinds of factors involved so although children in one-parent families overall do seem to be disadvantaged, it is very important to look at why."
	If a child has a father and that father goes, it is a different scenario from being brought up without a father in the direct household. I think Professor Golombok makes that clear, and the same applies to lesbian couples.
	The second question concerns discrimination. I was surprised by what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said about the Human Rights Act, because I think that it showed a failure to understand what the Act is about. It does not just provide a remedy. It is not just about saying, "You will suffer. Okay, suffer, and then in a few years' time when you have gone through the courts—if you have the resources and the wherewithal—you will have a remedy." The Human Rights Act, which he prayed in aid, along with human rights law—it was unusual for him to do so, but he did so when it suited him—is about ensuring that there is a framework for legislation and the behaviour of the state that does not intrude into private matters in breach of individual liberties.
	I should have thought that Conservative Members would recognise the importance of restraining the state and its unreasonable intervention in private matters. That is why Ted Webb was right to say that there was a legal obligation for the Government—I urged this on the Government—to ensure that their laws are as compliant as possible. In the absence of justification for intervention, the present law is simply not compliant.
	Let me now give three examples of discrimination, because that has been requested.

David Burrowes: Would the hon. Gentleman's concerns about discrimination not be satisfied by clause 53, "Interpretation of references to father etc.", which refers to the father and the woman who is the other parent? In cases in which a woman is
	"in civil partnership at time of treatment"
	or treatment is
	"provided to woman who agrees that second woman to be present",
	references to the father of the child who has a parent
	"by virtue of that section"
	could also be read as a reference to the woman, who would be classified as the "other parent". In terms of the legal definition, there would not be the discrimination that concerns the hon. Gentleman. That is the point that the Joint Committee made in its recommendations.

Evan Harris: I believe that that is about birth certificates, and bringing provisions into line. The Minister has indicated that I am right, which is an achievement for me nowadays. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who chaired the Committee. He recognised the difficulty of teasing the issues apart.

Edward Vaizey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Evan Harris: I will give way once more.

Edward Vaizey: I merely want to confirm that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) was referring to the definition section concerning birth certificates, legitimacy and nationality, which has nothing to do with parenthood.

Evan Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
	I was going to give three brief examples relating to discrimination, but I shall now confine myself to two. In an e-mail, Natalie Gamble, a fertility lawyer dealing with discrimination cases, has stated:
	"to say that no lesbian couples are denied treatment as a result of the need for a father provision is simply untrue. I have had five clients in the past year who have got in touch for advice after being denied access to treatment. In one case at a private clinic a couple were told that the waiting list for donor sperm was very long and they could not even be put on it because they were a same sex couple. In another case a primary care trust eligibility criteria for NHS funding stated explicitly that, due to the duty to consider the need for a father, lesbian couples were not eligible for funding even if they were infertile."
	That may or may not be the Birmingham case, but I can tell my hon. Friend the. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming)—although he is no longer present—that the "frequently asked question" that he read out applied to private funders. The NHS eligibility criterion was discriminatory, which it should not have been because that is unlawful.
	Many clinics, including Bourn Hall—cited by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) as being in his constituency—used to refuse lesbian couples, until they realised that they need the money. However, they no longer need the money, as lesbian couples are forced to pay because they cannot obtain NHS treatment.
	Another example from the same lawyer is an account by a client, whom I cannot name for obvious reasons but who says "He"—I think that refers to the clinician—
	"got out his criteria list, underlined the word 'heterosexual' and ringed the word 'stable' in the sentence 'Needs to have been in a stable heterosexual relationship of at least 2 years'. Later he also referred to the sentence at the bottom of the list of criteria which said 'Welfare of the child issues', saying 'It could also be seen as a welfare of the child issue'."
	Those are just two examples, but they explain why the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued this statement:
	"The central issue here is not fatherhood; it is fairness. The current legalised discrimination in the provision of IVF services is something that we should be ashamed of as a country. We agree with the Government that parliament should not let another day go by in which single women and lesbian couples are denied access to fertility treatment on exactly the same basis as everyone else."
	Even if they receive that treatment, they should receive it on the same basis as everyone else.
	The quotation continues:
	"The Commission understands the importance of male role models for children, but believes that this is, in principle and in practice, a matter for the parents themselves, and not an issue for legislation. We shouldn't be the sort of authoritarian society"
	—Trevor Phillips is saying this—
	" in which an 80 per cent. male House of Commons presumes to instruct women on how and with whom they bring children into the world."

James McGovern: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Evan Harris: I am keen to finish my speech, because others wish to speak.
	I have spoken to clinicians about what the Bill will mean, and I want to reinforce a point made by the Minister. Fortunately, the code of practice currently enables the need for a father provision to be dealt with in a relatively moderate way, but if we voted for a requirement for clinics to observe a need for a father provision, they would have to apply the test to every group of people in order not to discriminate. John Parsons at King's College hospital has said that in eight years he and his colleagues have conducted 8,000 treatment cycles with 6,000 patients. Going through a detailed role model test with 6,000 patients would be a huge burden.
	I ask those Members who support either of the amendments in question why they want to introduce a measure that could be unfair, and at best would be ineffective and bureaucratic. That is not the right thing to do. The Committee should support the Bill as it stands.

Geraldine Smith: I shall try to be brief, as I know that many Members wish to speak.
	First, let me strongly state that no Member disputes the love, care and commitment given to children by many lone and same-sex parents. That is not the issue; no one is questioning that. We have heard some third-hand evidence of cases where there may have been discrimination, but I have never been presented with the name of a woman or a specific case where someone has said, "I've been refused fertility treatment because of the need for a father." I find it strange that we have had the Joint Committee and witnesses have been called, yet no one has come forward and said, "I've been discriminated against," and that instead we only have vague third-hand examples. If any Member can offer a case or name someone who has been discriminated against—or tell me about that in private—I would be happy to hear, because I have never heard such evidence.

Dari Taylor: This is an important point, and I wish to turn it around. I have asked such infertile women and couples time and again to write to their Member of Parliament and to speak loudly about the fact that they are discriminated against. On the whole, they will not do so. They are very shy, and they are seriously concerned. As they do not wish to express that publicly, the fact that they do not should not come as a surprise to my hon. Friend.

Geraldine Smith: If people suffer discrimination, usually someone somewhere is willing to speak out and say, "I've been discriminated against," so I find it very strange that no one has.

Andrew Slaughter: I do not think any Member is going to get up and start naming names. My hon. Friend recently heard the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) give many examples from legal practitioners in the field of solo women and lesbian couples in that situation. We have all received those briefings, so my hon. Friend must have done so as well. Is she not trying to walk the same invisible line as the Opposition, which is to say, "We need these provisions, but actually they will have no effect"?

Geraldine Smith: First, let me say that this is not a party political issue. There will be a free vote tonight, and many Labour Members share my views.
	In IVF treatment, the interests of the child must be paramount. IVF must not be about the potential parents; it must be about what is best for that child. I cannot see what harm is being done by saying to a lesbian couple or single woman who goes for IVF treatment, "For the welfare of the child, can you consider the need for a father? If there is not a father, is there a potential father figure?" Even having that discussion must do some good, and must make people think.
	I suspect that there has not been a problem—or no one has come forward and said there is a problem and they have been affected—because most lesbians and single women going for IVF treatment are responsible. They take the decision that they want to have children and they look at what that involves, including whether there is a father figure—albeit, perhaps, a grandparent or someone else in the wider family—who could be a positive male role model for the child.

Phil Willis: I do not think any Member doubts the hon. Lady's sincerity, and when she took part in the consideration of the draft Bill she raised these points. Will she, however, be kind enough to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)? By putting this requirement back in, does the hon. Lady intend there to be criteria that a lesbian couple or a solo parent—or, indeed, a heterosexual couple—would have to satisfy, and that if they did not do so they would be denied treatment? Also, what would be the test to prove that there was a satisfactory male role model?

Geraldine Smith: I am saying that, under the status quo, no one to date has come forward and said that they have been denied treatment. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of someone who has, perhaps he could tell me who they are.
	The Government consulted on this issue. It is important to hear the views of the British public; as we represent them, we should take their views into consideration.

Stephen Williams: Acts go unreported in many fields. Rape is an example; that goes unreported. The rape statistics are understated. Does the hon. Lady think that that means that we should not seriously deal with the issue of rape?

Geraldine Smith: I have moved on to the issue of public consultation. The consultation made it clear that most people thought the legislation should be left as it was—that it was okay, and it was not causing a problem. That was the response when the Government asked people what they thought. We could look at any of the opinion polls that have been conducted. The most recent one was in December 2007; 77 per cent. of people said that the need for a father should be taken into consideration.
	Most people will think that this issue is about not discrimination, but common sense. I am sure that if we were to ask lesbians and single women, a great many would agree with my point of view and would not see a problem with it. This issue is more to do with vocal lobby groups making points.

Chris Bryant: I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend and she often speaks good common sense, but I have to say that in this one instance she must understand that if she were to talk to most lesbians in this country about the amendment she is supporting she would discover that they find it profoundly offensive, because effectively it is saying, "You're not enough. You're not sufficient. Your family is not complete."

Geraldine Smith: It might surprise my hon. Friend to know that I do talk to many lesbians, and quite a few of them have a great deal of common sense and would not find any problem with this. So it depends who we talk to; maybe lesbians in Lancashire are a bit more down to earth than lesbians in London.
	I spoke on this subject on Second Reading, so I do not want to speak on it now for too long, but let me make the following appeal to all Members: this is about common sense and what is in the best interests of the child, and it is also about saying that fathers have a role to play. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) talked about instructing women about bringing children into the world, but may I finally say that women need a man if they are to bring a child into the world? That is a fact of life at the moment; science has not changed that yet, so there is nothing we can do about it. Therefore, fathers are pretty important.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady said at the outset of her remarks that she accepted readily that there were plenty of good and loving lesbian parents. However, she then went on constantly to reiterate the alleged need for the father. For the avoidance of doubt and in pursuance of the intervention of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), may I ask her whether she is therefore saying that they are good parents only if a third person is introduced as well? If she is saying that, that is profoundly insulting, as well as having the disadvantage of being wrong.

Geraldine Smith: No, I am saying that it is common sense just to take into consideration the need for a father, and if a child has not got a father to realise that it might be a good thing if there were a father figure—a male figure—in their life, because that is important. Men and women are different; that is just a fact of life. They bring different things to parenthood. Sometimes when there are two same-sex parents, it is a good idea also to have someone who can act as a male role model. That is not discriminating against anyone. That is just enhancing the upbringing of the child; it is just helping. At the end of the day, this is not about discrimination; it is about the child.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) speaks with a degree of refreshing candour and common sense, and she underlines the fact that this is not, never has been and never should be a party political issue. I am as far apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), whom in other ways I admire very much, on this issue as I could possibly be from anyone.
	I have listened to this afternoon's debate with profound depression. When I entered this House in 1970, if somebody had told me that nearly 40 years thence, the House would debate the need for a father, I would have thought that that person had taken leave of his senses. What we are talking about is the natural order of things, and I make no apology for standing up for what I believe to be the natural order of things.  [ Interruption. ] It may well be that people can barrack, but I happen to be the first chairman of the all-party committee for widows and single-parent families in this House. We came together and founded that group in 1974 because we believed in helping single-parent families as much as we possibly could, and a very good committee it was, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) became a member of it after he joined the House.
	Another Committee that I was much involved with as long ago as 1970—with Lord Janner, then Greville Janner, the former Member for Leicester, North-West—had at its heart the preservation and advancement of proper human rights. That was the all-party parliamentary committee for Soviet Jews—for the release of Soviet Jewry—and we stood for what we considered to be those human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that have now been so distorted, so altered, so extended as to cover a whole range of things that really are not human rights at all. At the root of the Bill that we are discussing this afternoon is the Government's realisation that if they did not insert certain words into it, they would be going against the Human Rights Act that we passed some 10 years ago, and which the House really ought to look at again. It is one thing to defend and advance the proper human rights that, for instance, the people of Burma, for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham stands up with great vigour, are completely deprived of. It is another thing entirely to extend and distort that concept of human rights, so that some people in this place, and many outside this place, are afraid to say—that it is a natural thing for a family to consist of a man and a woman who have children, and who give those children a natural and a proper home.
	When I listened this afternoon to some of the surreal exchanges that have taken place, I could not help but remember the immortal words of Mr. Bumble, who said:
	"If the law supposes that...the law is a ass".
	We in this Committee this afternoon are responsible for the law and for trying, I hope, to bring a little balance into the law.
	I listened with considerable admiration to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) when he moved his amendment. He did it with passion and clarity and with a degree of real modesty, but I have to say that I do not think that he went far enough. Although I have many friends who are lesbian or gay, I nevertheless do not believe that a lesbian pair of women or a gay pair of men can provide the same degree of balance, harmony and domestic comfort as parents of the opposite sex can. That is not to say that there are not many parents—men and women, married and unmarried—who are very bad and very cruel to children.
	We are talking about families—the Government have even elevated the word "families" into the title of one of the Departments of State. If we are intent on promoting the concept of the family, why do we run away from the importance of the role of the father?

Edward Vaizey: Given the logic of my hon. Friend's case, if a mother and a father had treatment, the mother became pregnant and the father then left the mother, should the mother then be made to terminate the pregnancy?

Patrick Cormack: That is a most fatuous intervention. I have never heard such a ridiculous intervention from a so-called intelligent man. Of course not, and the hon. Gentleman almost abuses himself by asking the question. It is a ridiculous question to ask.
	There can be domestic problems between any people—of course there can. Within our own family in Parliament, there are those who have strong marriages and those who do not have marriages at all. We represent all sorts of conditions of men and women, but I make no apology for saying in this House that I believe that the natural family unit is the man, woman and children. There are cases where children do not have that advantage because the mother has been deserted. I suppose that I have as many cases in my surgery as colleagues do of women coming to ask for help with the Child Support Agency, and of women whose husbands have behaved utterly despicably. I have many examples in my constituency of single women who, with great courage and enormous sacrifice, skill and dedication, brought up their families. My cousins, twins, were 55 last week. Their father was so badly injured in the war that he died within weeks of their being born. My aunt brought those men up to be the fine men they are today. All of us can replicate that sort of experience, but in doing so and in relaying it to the Committee, we should not, out of a misguided concept of equality and fairness, pretend that there is an automatic right for anyone to have a child, regardless of sex.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Patrick Cormack: No, because I am conscious of the fact that I, too, wanted to get in to speak, and that others want to follow me, so I will try to bring my remarks to a close quite quickly.
	I am happy to hold to the view that no one has the right to a child. I happen to believe that a child is God-given, but—

Chris Bryant: With assistance.

Patrick Cormack: Assisted, yes—assisted by a man and a woman.

Chris Bryant: And a doctor.

Patrick Cormack: And sometimes by a doctor, and sometimes by a test-tube. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman and to anybody else in this Committee that a child who is deliberately brought into the world with no desire that there should be a man and a woman as the parents is brought into it with a disadvantage. In so far as the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green goes some way toward redressing the balance in the Bill before us, it deserves the support of the whole Committee.

Dari Taylor: This is obviously a passionate debate and people have serious concerns about the outcome of the vote tonight. I was delighted when the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said that there were only a few studies that were up to date. That was a very important statement for all of us, because it told us that what we are attempting to assess is new and difficult, and that there are serious complications. He could have continued by saying that there are few new and up-to-date studies for us to use in making an assessment, and that many of the outcomes in terms of gay and homosexual family structures have been defined according to the author's preference in the research, which has clearly defined the questions being asked. We know that we are in a very difficult area when we are examining research and hoping that it will give us objective judgments upon which we make a judgment as to whether we need to provide for the need for a father or for a stable home.
	Much that has been said is important. The quality of parents is much more relevant than their gender to how they determine and deliver the emotional, social and educational achievements of their children. It is also important for us to accept that all the research that has been published—like many other hon. Members, I have looked at a mountain of it—references not homosexuals or heterosexuals who have benefited from IVF, but parents who have adopted or have fostered. We all face the serious problem of trying to unscramble the research to make a fair, representative and objective analysis.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and profound contribution. I do not intend to repeat the speech that I made 18 years ago on this issue, but would she concede that there is a difference between the issue of same-sex couples being suitable to foster a child at a particular point in that child's life in the interests of the child—that was agreed by the authority that I led 25 years ago—and the creation of a child, and the belief that the creation of that child is somehow a right, in circumstances outwith the normality of how we would proceed were we not able to implement IVF? That is quite different from the situation of those seeking a child through the course of a marriage or a separate relationship. Would she therefore agree that this is not about equality or rights, and that it is about the nature of procreation and the way in which we proceed in respect of a policy in the nation, rather than an individual right for a human being?

Dari Taylor: It might not surprise my right hon. Friend to learn that I do not agree with him. That which is appropriate for children who are adopted or fostered is equally appropriate for any who are produced by IVF; I see no difference at all, because parenting is parenting.
	I wish to put on record some of my concerns about this debate. The debate is not just about whether every child needs a father or a stable home; it is about the IVF treatment available to couples or women. First and foremost, people have said that a serious disparity is involved. The absolute statement made is that the national health service produces very little in terms of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence agreements; the great majority of women and couples have to access private clinics, and in so doing they have to stump up between £5,000 and £10,000.
	Let us consider how women and couples access this treatment. They are attempting to do that which comes naturally for so many people: conceive a child. They put not only their investment, but so much of themselves on the line. I find it inconceivable——to use an unintentional pun—that they would not love, cherish, protect the child and provide it with a stable home.
	The other statement with which the House should attempt to come to terms is the one that the hundreds and thousands of women who request this treatment have to face from medics on a regular basis: "The treatment has failed." It does not just fail once; it fails month after month. Invariably, women do not access the treatment until they are over 30—often they are over 35—and there are a variety of other reasons why they are excluded from treatment. Such women have five years when their fecundity would support their conceiving naturally or with the help of IVF, so in agonising over whether a statement about a father should be placed in the Bill, we should get the rounded picture, because there is a rounded picture to be obtained.
	We are talking about a very emotional consultation. I am explaining it, although I think most people in the Chamber know about it, because the amendment seeks to require the medic to demand one further qualification, and deliver another responsibility. He or she would have to ask the person seeking IVF treatment, "Have you got a male? Is there a father figure who will be able to provide the stability that we think is appropriate?" A medic would have to ask that, on top of all the other things that they say to incredibly emotional women who are strung up about one thing only: their desire to have a baby. Does the amendment anticipate the woman taking along with her any male to fulfil that role, so that she has a partner? Will this be policed? Will the medics be asked to prove that they have checked that this qualification is in place? This afternoon, we are hearing a determination, or an attempt to say, that father figures are so important that medics must be made part of the judgment as to whether a woman has a stable relationship or not.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Lady spoke of the need for a qualification. Does she accept that the amendment speaks merely of the need to take account of certain things? That is a very different matter.

Dari Taylor: That is the whole point. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because how would we take account of these things? There would have to be a process by which people make a judgment. I am trying to say to the House that medics have a seriously difficult situation to handle, that we would be adding one more part to that and that that would be very problematic for them.
	I chair the all-party group on infertility. I see women with serious illnesses and medical problems on a regular basis—and their partners—so I have that one-to-one relationship with them. They are extraordinarily uptight people; they feel that there is something wrong with them, they do not want to expose it to others and they face enough problems without our adding this. They want, and will produce, a stable family. The amendment is discriminatory, but worse than that, it just does not make sense, and I shall support the Bill's remaining intact tonight.

Tim Loughton: May I make a few comments to endorse the passion that we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and the comments of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), who spoke with enormous common sense? I do not want to vilify, or discriminate against, anybody, but I am concerned about how this debate has gone, and about the undermining of the role of fathers, the message that that sends out about fatherhood and the resulting effect on our children's welfare.
	The clause sits rather uncomfortably in the Bill, which is why I support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). This part of the Bill, unlike the rest of it, is not about the power of scientists; it is about the power of political correctness and it is about a misconceived notion of equality and fairness, which has been behind many of the objections that we have heard from those on the Labour Benches. There are echoes of the Bill on same-sex adoption from many years ago. I think that we have moved on a long way since then, but I should point out an essential difference. That Bill dealt with children in care who were born of, and may have spent time with, two parents but then needed to be given the opportunity for a stable upbringing. Here we are dealing with children who will, by design, never have a father. We are talking about artificially creating life that will become a child who will, under these terms, know no father and have no father's influence in his or her upbringing, and whose only connection with a father will have been a momentary collision of gametes in a test tube at the point of conception. That is what will happen if the Government get their way.
	I support this amendment not primarily from any religious or moral considerations, less still any intention to undermine the credibility and dedication of single mothers who have been left to bring up children on their own for whatever reason, or even the suitability of same-sex couples to bring up children. My primary concern is for the welfare of the child, which we are all bound to take into account under clause 1 of the Children Act 1989, and in practice because it is the right priority to have.
	I am annoyed, more than anything else, by the constant talk of the rights of adults to have a child—not the rights of a child—as if they are the latest must-have accessory on a par with the right to water or warmth. The overwhelming right here must be the right of a child to enjoy and benefit from the society and nurture of his or her parents and family. Not to acknowledge that is to diminish the role of both parents.
	The figures speak for themselves and many have been related to the Committee already, but the influence of a father is indisputable in the mental health of a child; in the educational development of a child; in the susceptibility of a child to fall foul of the law; in the likelihood that a child will live in poverty; in the likelihood that a child will be involved in teenage pregnancy; and so on. Those figures are incontrovertible. Statistically, depriving children born by IVF of the need to take account of a father's role when considering the creation of that child is to condemn that child to a much greater likelihood of underachievement and unhappiness.
	The amendment does not specify that the father has to be there, but regard must be given to the benefits that a father, or the alternative father figures that have been mentioned, can bring to bear for the good of the child. That is why opinion polls show that 80 per cent. of people are opposed to the changes in the Bill. I have not had a single letter urging me to vote any way other than against the existing provisions in the Bill and in favour of the amendments.
	Fathers bring something distinctive to the parenting process and we should never forget that. They have been referred to as the forgotten contributors to child development. But the framing of the Bill sends out another damaging message that threatens to undermine fatherhood and the role of fathers. Many fathers feel sidelined after the failure of the Government to accept amendments on the presumption of shared parenting in the Children and Adoption Act 2006. I am also concerned by the many references in this debate to absent fathers who have done the dirty and run away. There are many absent fathers who are denied access to their children because they are the non-resident parent. They would like to be the resident parent or to have access to their children, but have been denied that by the courts. Let us not vilify all fathers who happen not to be resident parents.

George Howarth: I am sure that the statistics that the hon. Gentleman cites are correct, but does he agree that in some cases it is right that the father be excluded from a child's life because he would be a bad influence?

Tim Loughton: That goes without saying, but there are many fathers who lose contact with their children unintentionally after the break-up of a marriage. They are not all absent from the home because they have done a flit and forsaken their responsibilities. I want to introduce some balance to the debate, because many fathers feel aggrieved and undermined. Legislation that says that fathers are no longer necessary to the nucleus of a family reinforces that dangerous feeling that many fathers already experience.
	Families Need Fathers has said about the Bill:
	"We believe this proposal sends out an extremely worrying message that makes fathers redundant in the upbringing of children. In an environment where significant societal problems are caused by the lack of a father in a child's life, the Government should be making every attempt to consolidate a father's position, rather than weaken it."
	This legislation would weaken the father's position—

James McGovern: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: No, because others wish to speak.
	At a time when fathers are spending more time than ever with their children—eight times as much as they did 30 years ago—when fathers in families in which women work carry out a third of parental care, and when fathers are more eager than ever to play a central role in the daily lives of their children, is it not ironic that this Bill would undermine that important role? I support this amendment because it is balanced. It would send out an important message to cohabiting couples as well as to same-sex couples and anybody else interested in IVF. It is not discriminatory or vilifying. It is supported by the public. It is the right thing to do because it is in the best interests of the child. It is common sense in my constituency and in my world, and that is a good thing and the amendment should be supported.

Chris Bryant: There is a strange irony in this debate. Either the original clause in the 1990 Act has had some effect, in which case the logic is that the status quo should preclude lesbians or single women from receiving IVF treatment, or the clause has had no effect and the amendment is just a declaratory gesture that, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has just said, its supporters wish to continue. However, that declaratory statement will not have the slightest effect on a young gentleman on a Friday night, when he has had a few pints. He will not say, "Oh, I remember. That Bill that Parliament passed last week said that there has to be a father, so I'm not going to have any unprotected sex tonight." Nor will it ensure that a single father participates in the raising of his child.
	Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee passionately want to ensure that the interests of the child are protected, but the amendment would do nothing to protect the rights of children. However, it would send the message out to lesbians and single women that they should not apply for IVF.
	It may be that many lesbians have been allowed to have IVF over the past few years, and we have had evidence presented that that has been the case, but in some areas IVF clinics have told them that they do not qualify simply because of their sexuality and because a father would not be involved. I do not think that we should now restate the 1990 Act, thereby making the HFEA tell all clinics that they should start discriminating against people on grounds of their sexuality.
	Both the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to what they believed to be "normality", and the views in the Dog and Duck in Yateley or wherever it was, and in Staffordshire. They also referred to the natural order and what is natural. The truth is that IVF is not, in the strictest sense, natural. It is assisted conception, and it is one of the great joys that doctors have been able to bring to many families around the country. I do not believe that lesbian couples or single women who have gone through the difficult process of deciding that they passionately want a child to bring up in a loving and caring environment are the problem that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) suggested.
	When we start to impose our understanding of what is normal or natural on others, we are treading a very dangerous path. I for one was taught as a child,
	"Judge not that ye be not judged."

Iris Robinson: I speak tonight saddened by the approach taken by right hon. and hon. Members who wish to airbrush out the role of fatherhood. I notice that there are many grins on faces, but I stand by my faith and the word of God that man was created in the image of God and that woman was created from the rib of Adam to be his helpmeet and companion. That is the natural progression of procreation.
	I am so sorry that hon. Members are abusing my position as a Christian and that they will not listen to me or give me due respect. I ask where the rights of the Christian people of this country are, because they have spoken. A recent poll reported in the press here showed that 80 per cent. of people recognise the need for the traditional family. Hon. Members can all breathe sighs of relief or indignation, but I am telling the House that the word of God says that procreation is through a man and a woman. We are moving mountains to facilitate immorality and to bring the rights of lesbians above all others in this country. It is a shame, and hon. Members ought to hang their heads in shame.

Iain Duncan Smith: I rise to sum up the issues before us. I will not follow on from the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), but I will pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who said that we could not make our minds up about whether the current system has worked or not. That is a legitimate question. We can argue that the status quo has worked, to a degree. Of course, the Bill will make it easier for couples of all varieties to get IVF treatment, but in the more limited context of the 1990 Act, it can be argued that the advisory section on fathers had an effect. It has been part of the tapestry that has allowed people to understand the need to take a balanced judgment about the importance of a father.
	I find it intriguing that people say, "If it is not any good, why not get rid of it?" In truth, the point tonight is that the Government's position is far more complicated than that which was in existence until they introduced the Bill. We will be asking clinicians to make a judgment, after they have gone through a long list of criteria, about which group of parents is supportive or not supportive. That is far more complicated and judgmental than current practice and will lead, I anticipate, to a large number of problems. We are asking clinicians to do something that they do not really want to do—that is, to judge the way in which people interrelate. The idea of taking cognisance of the role of a father is simple. That requirement asks clinicians to discuss the issue, and as long as those who are seeking the treatment have taken it into consideration, that is fine. That is why there has not been a single case of anyone having the treatment taken from them.
	I compliment my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Robert Key) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) on their excellent contributions. I think that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) was on the wrong track. As gently as I can, I tell her that if an hon. Member uses a piece of evidence in Committee, they have to get it absolutely right.
	In conclusion, I want to press amendment No. 21 to a vote. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said that this is about fairness, not fatherhood—but if the clause does not say that fatherhood is important, there will be no fairness in the Bill. I say to all those who are unsure or in doubt that those of us who tabled the amendment do not have to justify our position. The Government, who have made the radical move to change the provision, have to justify their decision. They have failed to do so. They will tear up the reasonable guidance and substitute a mess. I therefore want to press amendment No. 21 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:——
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 217, Noes 292.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, The Temporary Chairman put forthwith the Questions necessary for disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [12 May].
	 Amendment proposed: No. 12, page 9, line 10, after 'parenting', insert
	'and a father or male role model'.— [Mark Simmonds.]
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 290.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Clauses 14 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Amendment of the law relating to abortion

'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "twelfth week".'.— [Mr. Leigh.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Edward Leigh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Roger Gale): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 2)—
	'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "fourteenth week".'.
	New clause 3— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 3)—
	'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "sixteenth week".'.
	New clause 4— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 4)—
	'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "eighteenth week".'.
	New clause 5— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 5)—
	'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "twentieth week".'.
	New clause 6— Medical termination of pregnancy: Amendment of the Abortion Act 1967—
	'(1) Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 (c.87) (medical termination of pregnancy) is amended as follows—
	(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (d),
	(b) after subsection (2), insert—
	"(2A) No treatment for the termination of pregnancy shall be carried out under subsection (1) of this section on the grounds of the disability, gender, race or (should it become identifiable before birth) sexual orientation of the child.".
	(2) In section 5 of that Act (supplementary provisions) omit subsection (2)(a).'.
	New clause 7— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 6)—
	'After section 2 of the Abortion Act 1967 (c.87) insert—
	"2A Informed Consent
	(1) Subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section shall not apply in the case of a medical emergency under section 1(4) of this Act.
	(2) At an appointment with a registered medical practitioner, on receipt of an initial request for a termination of pregnancy from a pregnant woman, or for initial advice regarding the potential termination of a pregnancy, a registered medical practitioner shall, as soon as reasonably practical, and in any event at least five calendar days prior to a termination of pregnancy taking place (where such a termination of pregnancy is applicable), fulfil the following informed consent requirements—
	(a) offer the pregnant woman counselling from a suitably qualified health professional; and
	(b) provide the pregnant woman with the following information:—
	(i) the embryonic and foetal development at two weekly intervals;
	(ii) the physical, psychological and psychiatric risks associated with the termination of pregnancy, including a description of the methods of termination at different stages of pregnancy and any risks associated with such methods; and
	(iii) the contact details of adoption services and other sources of help and advice, (including information on any disability or abnormality that the pregnant woman's embryo or foetus is at risk of suffering from if born).
	(3) A registered medical practitioner must provide the pregnant woman with a written form, of which he must retain a copy, as soon as is reasonably practicable, certifying the date upon which paragraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b) of this section were complied with, and in the case of a termination of the pregnancy, the form must be completed prior to any such termination.
	(4) Any persons who wilfully contravenes or fails to comply with the requirements of informed consent under subsections (2) or (3) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
	(5) The Secretary of State shall by statutory instrument make regulations to provide for informed consent as specified in subsections (1) to (4) of this section and shall make provisions concerning the procedure, the requirement for date certification by a practitioner or practitioners, the information requirements and any other ancillary matters as are necessary to ensure the fulfilment of the informed consent requirements.
	(6) Any statutory instrument made by virtue of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament."'.
	New clause 8— Foetal physical or mental abnormalities: Information and counselling—
	'After section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (Medical termination of pregnancy) insert—
	"1A (1) If tests of a foetus reveal that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped, a registered medical practitioner or a suitably qualified health professional expeditiously shall provide the pregnant woman with—
	(a) current, scientific information in a written form concerning:
	(i) the life expectancy of;
	(ii) the expected intellectual and functional development of; and
	(iii) the treatment options for;
	a foetus diagnosed with, or a child born with, the physical or mental abnormalities identified as a risk by those tests,
	(b) contact details for, where available, supportive service providers, including telephone help lines specific to the physical or mental abnormalities identified as a risk by those tests, and
	(c) the offer of a suitable opportunity to receive relevant counselling and such other information as they deem proper.
	(2) If, subsequent to the receipt of test results referred to under subsection (1), the pregnant woman notifies a registered medical practitioner that she is considering terminating the pregnancy, either wholly or partly as a result of those test results, then the termination must not take place until the information and offer set out in subsections (1)(a) to (c) have been provided.'.
	New clause 9— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 7)—
	'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "twenty-second week".'.
	New clause 11— Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 9)—
	'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 Abortion Act for "its twenty-fourth" week", substitute "23 weeks and 6 days".'.

Edward Leigh: Mr. Gale— [Interruption.]
	The Temporary Chairman: Order. Will Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly, please?

Edward Leigh: Mr. Gale, it is an honour to open this debate. The only reason why new clause 1 is being considered first, and I am speaking to it, is that we wanted to give the Committee a chance to vote on all the new clauses in ascending numerical order at 10 o'clock; that, I think, is best and most convenient for the Committee.
	My new clause 1 will limit social abortions to those carried out before 12 weeks' gestation. In Europe, the most common position is for abortions to take place before 12 weeks. The new clause would not affect some 89 per cent. of abortions.
	The minds of most people in the Chamber will be made up. We each know where we stand, according to our conscience. We know when we think life begins, and whether we think it begins at conception or not. That is probably true of the so-called strongly pro-choice or pro-life people. For many of us, there are strong points of principle involved. Later in the debate, we will come on to the detail of the issue of when people think that an unborn child is viable. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I spend a few moments setting out the principles that motivate us.
	There is rightly much talk in the House about human rights and the rights of the vulnerable. In my personal view, there is just one, overwhelming, fundamental human right: the right to life. I must confess that my views have changed over the years. If I am to be honest with myself, I have to take an entirely consistent position. If a vote were to be held on capital punishment, I would vote against it. That is why I voted against all the recent wars, and why I am voting as I am on the Bill. I believe that one can only take a consistent position based on humanity, with all its faults and disabilities. That is where I stand; I do not know any other way. I hope that the House will forgive those of us who take that position.
	We sometimes feel that the ghosts of great parliamentarians are looking down on us in our great debates on the social issues of the day. The great-great-grandson of William Wilberforce said recently that he thought that if that great parliamentarian were here now, he would support us. Wilberforce fought against entrenched opposition, moneyed interests and a world view according to which some people were not fully human. We know that we are up against it tonight; we know that the pro-choice lobby dominates the establishment, and that we are talking about a multi-million-pound industry, but for all that, we feel that our voice has to be heard. It is not perhaps the voice of the leading members of the medical establishment, or the voice of the majority in the House of Commons, but it is the voice of many people in our country, and the views expressed by that voice have to be put on record.
	We believe that an unborn child of 12 weeks' gestation has undeniable human characteristics. Her organs, muscles and nerves have begun to function. She has fingernails and toenails. To become a child, she needs nothing more than to stay for a few months in the safety of her mother's womb. We will all take different views. Some will not share our opinion, but undeniably the view is developing in this country that what I say is more and more true of unborn children at 16, 18 or 20 weeks. We must accept that in this instance we are dealing with a human life. If we cannot deny the humanity of babies at 12 weeks, we cannot deny our duty to protect them.
	Those are our views, and I set them out at the beginning of the debate, but I know that many people will not accept them. However, I think that they will accept that public opinion is changing in this country. That is why I tabled the new clause. The public are beginning to realise that we are out of step with many other countries. That is partly because, as a result of advances in modern medical science, we know so much more about what goes on in the womb.
	Only this week, I read a moving article by Vincent Argent, the former medical director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. He is not a religious person. He has carried out many abortions, and he is presumably pro-choice. He was critical of the euphemistic way we talk of foetuses when we discuss abortions, whereas when we refer to IVF we talk of babies. He said:
	"Most people do not realise just how distressing late abortions can be. The procedure remains the last taboo. While heart and brain surgery are regularly shown on television, the reality of a late abortion has never been seen on British screens...It is hard to describe how it feels to pull out parts of a baby, to see arms, and bits of leg, and finally the head."
	I know that it is distressing to read that; I do not want to cause distress, but we have to accept that there is a double standard. We are so careful about the life of a baby when it is wanted, and so concerned about the mother's health, but we are dismissive of the rights of an unborn child when it is not wanted. Of course we would like every child to be a wanted child, and of course we appreciate the enormous pressures on women, and the difficulties that they face. However, an unwanted foetus can become a wanted child, but a dead foetus can never become a living one. That is our position.

Anne Moffat: The hon. Gentleman talked about double standards. Is it not a double standard for him, a total anti-abortionist, to use the new clause to chip away at legislation that is required for the safety of women and children? As an ex-nurse—an ex-professional—I have seen things at first hand. A woman who has an abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy does so because of extreme medical circumstances.

Edward Leigh: That is the hon. Lady's view. I think that everybody knows where I stand, and many people in the Chamber will have religious convictions. As we know, the fact is that politics is about practical realities.
	The practical reality is that in this country we have a 24-week abortion limit, which is one of the highest in Europe. As public opinion changes, we as parliamentarians are entitled to give the House a chance to vote on various options to reduce it, from 12 weeks to 22 weeks. That is all we are doing. We know that whatever our personal views, religious or otherwise—many people who believe strongly in abortion are not religious—we know that abortion on demand up to 10 or 12 weeks is the reality in every country in Europe, apart from Ireland and Malta. It is not a question of chipping away; we are giving the House the opportunity to vote.
	There are double standards about the unborn child. Whatever one's views on abortions—I understand the strongly held views of many people who feel that they have to defend the rights of women to make a choice about something in their own body—surely everyone in the Chamber feels depressed about what is going on in Europe. It presents a bleak picture of our country that we have one of the highest abortion rates in Europe—200,000 a year. In modern Britain, the most dangerous place to be is in one's mother's womb, which should be a place of sanctity. Ninety-eight per cent. of abortions are social. Only 1.3 per cent. are because of foetal handicap and 0.4 per cent. are because of the risk to the mother's life. It is a bleak picture of modern Britain.
	We read in our newspapers this week that some women have multiple abortions: 4,000 women have had four abortions, and scores have had eight. Is that the sort of Britain to be proud of? I know that I will not get the support of many people when I say this, but fewer abortions will mean fewer women suffering. It is pro-women to take the position that we take. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recently issued a statement about the mental and physical damage to women's health caused by abortions.
	That is our principled stand. We have set it out, knowing that it is not shared by everybody, but it is the view of many of our fellow countrymen and country ladies, and that view must be put forward.
	Why do I speak of 12 weeks? I know many hon. Members will be doubtful about voting for the motion. They will say that it represents an extreme point of view, but is it so extreme? The limit of 10 to 12 weeks applies in France, Portugal, Slovenia—although in Slovenia there is an appeal to a committee—Austria, Belgium. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia and Spain. In Romania the limit is 14 weeks, and in Sweden 18 weeks.
	The 24-week limit applies only in the United Kingdom, Holland, Latvia, Lithuania and Cyprus. Do we want to be up there in that league? Germany, Austria and France are great countries with wonderful Parliaments and democracies. They debate these matters and, after mature debate, they have all taken the view that a limit of 10 or 12 weeks is about right.

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend will be aware that even in the United Kingdom abortion is not available on demand everywhere. In Northern Ireland, as the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Benches in front of me will testify, abortion is still illegal.

Edward Leigh: I hope that if we still believe strongly in the right of the people of Northern Ireland to have control of their own affairs, we will let them make that decision in the way that most of their leading political parties want to make it.
	Given what is happening in the rest of Europe, it is not surprising that public opinion is changing. A recent ComRes poll showed that 58 per cent. of the people, including three out of four women, think that abortion should be limited to 20 weeks or less, and 41 per cent. of women think that the abortion limit should be lowered to 12 weeks or less, so ours is not an extreme view. I know that opinion polls are not conclusive and one can throw doubt on a particular poll, but I am sure everybody will accept that there is a genuine change in public opinion and we should reflect that in this House.
	Forty years ago the House was asked by a Member: "Would the sponsors of the Bill think it right to kill a baby they can see? Of course they would not. Why then do they think it right to kill one they cannot see?" Since 1990, despite what we were promised way back in 1966 and 1967, we have effectively had abortion on demand, certainly up to 18 or 20 weeks and, under the law, up to 24 weeks. But since 1990 we have learned so much more about what goes on in the womb. We can see babies walking and sucking their thumbs. I have seen that with my own six children.
	Forty years ago, another right hon. Member made this telling statement: "When a decision about abortion is taken, the mother can speak, the doctor can speak, the father may well speak, but what can the child in the womb say? The child cannot speak. She cannot say, 'I want to live.'" I believe that we should give that silent child a voice.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I shall speak to new clauses 7 and 1, and other new clauses relating to a reduction in the limit beyond which an abortion may not take place. I share the views of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I am sorry that we do not all have the same view on this issue.
	In 2006, 193,000 women in this country had abortions. Under new clause 7, the next 200,000 women who will probably elect to have an abortion next year would have the right to appropriate support and information before making a final decision. Obtaining an abortion is incredibly easy. I know that at first hand, having recently accompanied my friend to an NHS-sponsored clinic. Consultations at the hairdresser's have taken longer than the time it took to make a decision to have an abortion.
	For the record, and contrary to many of the statements that I have read this week which purport to know my views, I am not opposed to abortion. I believe that women should have the right to choose; I just hope that they do not choose to have an abortion. I hope that all of us here are working to create an environment in which economic and social abortions are unnecessary, and that babies who are disabled or who are not considered acceptable because they may be handicapped in one way or another are no longer considered to be such a burden on society that we must get rid of them at all costs.
	I would very much like it if we could change the rules and regulations so that the same rules applied to babies in the womb who have a disability as to those who do not. I do not understand why we continue to discriminate against them. For me, all individuals are born equal, irrespective of the disabilities they manifest. That is irrelevant. We are all of the same value.
	Having an abortion is a very serious undertaking, and women who have had one rarely ever mention it again. I suppose that for many it is something that they would prefer to forget, but even for them, echoes of that day will live with them for ever. Some will come to bitterly regret their decision. Some women will invariably develop depressive anxiety or other mental health disorders as a direct result of a five-minute decision.
	The new clause seeks to ensure that women presenting themselves for an abortion are given the sort of information that women should have had since the introduction of the law. I am arguing that at least five days before a woman finally makes any decision to have an abortion, a doctor should be required to offer her counselling and the details of the embryonic and foetal development of her baby at two-weekly intervals. She should also have information about the physical, psychological and psychiatric risks associated with the termination of pregnancy, including a description of the methods of termination of different types of pregnancies and any risks associated with those methods. Finally, the woman should have a right to know about adoption services and other sources of help and advice, including information on any disability or abnormality from which the pregnant woman's embryo or foetus is at risk of suffering if born.

Evan Harris: Does the hon. Lady accept, first, that the existing consent forms and information sheets approved by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists provide information about the risks associated with abortion and as much information as the woman needs? Secondly, does she accept that it cannot be right to force doctors to give information that a woman says she does not want because she would find it distressing? Does the hon. Lady accept that the role of the doctor is not to hector or impose on women burdensome information, which they do not want to know, about the methods of abortion? That does not happen in any other form of medicine, and it should not happen in the one that we are discussing.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: But it does happen, does it not? When a man presents for a vasectomy at a doctor's surgery, the doctor does not say, "Come in, sit down and take your trousers off." He says, "I think you ought to think about this for a little while." If the man involved is under the age of 30, childless and not yet married, the doctor may well say to him, "I think you ought to think about this seriously." I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; on many occasions, a doctor will take his patient to one side and say, "Think about this very seriously."

Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Is she ready to acknowledge the very good work that is already done by a range of services in respect of counselling and carefully advising women before they make their decision?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Yes, well, there are such services, of course, and I am aware of them. However, as I said earlier, I took my friend along for an abortion and no such services were available where we went. As for reading the small print, I happen to think that the event is so traumatic that many women are incapable of reading what is put in front of them.  [Interruption.] That is the truth of it. Abortion is a very traumatic event and, as with other traumatic events, people require an opportunity to reflect on what is being said.
	Those of us who have gone with relatives who are suffering from or diagnosed with cancer recognise those circumstances. The diagnosis is so traumatic and the impact on the individual so enormous that they are frequently precluded from understanding the significance of the decisions in front of them. That is why they elect to take somebody with them, and that is why I was pleased to accompany my friend.

Michael Jabez Foster: Is it not the case that one has to have informed consent in respect of almost every profession? When we go to a lawyer, he does not say, "I'm going to give you one half of the story but not the other." Is informed consent not a prerequisite for any treatment of most medical conditions?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: It most certainly is. I have consulted a number of my medical friends about this issue. In other procedures, particularly those involving children, parents will often be sat down and invited to consider the consequences of the child's condition and of any operation. Then they will be encouraged to go home and talk to friends and family about them.
	I believe that informed consent is a natural part of a whole range of medical procedures in this country. I just do not understand why it has been omitted in respect of what we are discussing. I understand that abortion is very traumatic and that women will find themselves in a terrible predicament, but I do not think that we will help them in the long term by expediting the process so quickly that we do not give due respect to what is being considered and undertaken.

Susan Kramer: I appreciate the hon. Lady's giving way. She will be aware that the doctor is required to offer counselling and that the forms are structured around informed consent. Does she not agree that attempts to reduce the time limit for abortions remove from women the opportunity to think through the issues? Will she join us in pursuing that issue?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I have heard that argument frequently this week. Frankly, the notion that we are limiting choice by suggesting that the limit for terminations should be reduced from 24 to 12 weeks is farcical. Nobody in the House is suggesting that we should extend the limit for legal abortions to 30 weeks to allow women another six weeks to consider their position. The issue of 24 weeks is about viability. I believe that many Members on both sides of the House are convinced that, given the opportunity, far more babies born and delivered at 23 weeks would be viable, and that we therefore have to protect them.

Angela Smith: No, that is not true.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I hear from a sedentary position that that is not true, but a baby who was born at 22 weeks and six days is alive today. I do not know where science will take us; I am told that we can expect improvements in the care given to children in neonatal units. I hope so, but I do not believe that it is wrong to curtail the time available for a woman to decide whether she is going to have an abortion.
	All the information that a woman needs about whether a baby has a physical or learning difficulty is available to her long before the 24-week cut-off date. I speak as a woman who has undergone those procedures, and I have two children with severe learning difficulties.

Jacqui Lait: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. I do not want to trade personal cases with her, but a constituent of mine has told me that at 22 weeks it was suggested to her that her baby had foetal abnormalities and that only at 23 weeks and three days was that confirmed. If the hon. Lady's proposal was put in place, I suggest that it would have made things extraordinarily difficult for my constituent.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I think that that was due to the timing of the tests, which might take place later in the pregnancy. However, as I know myself, tests are taken at 12, 14 and 16 weeks. If the tests are conducted then, their outcome can be known in the 20th week.

Desmond Turner: It is a medical fact that it is not possible to diagnose certain foetal abnormalities until about 22 weeks. Is the hon. Lady aware of that?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am most certainly aware of that because, unlike my hon. Friend, I have personally been through the procedure. I am very clued up about when the results of the tests can be received. Actually, the tests relate to the development of cultures. If the cultures are taken early enough, the results come at 20 weeks. By the way, I feel that I should tell Members that when I was given the results of my tests, it was immediately suggested to me that I should have an abortion.

Phil Willis: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I hope that she will agree that it is important early in this debate for us to put the science before the Committee and agree on some of the facts. The two major reports that look at viability—the EPICure 1 and EPICure 2 studies, the latter of which came out this year—confirmed that very few pre-term babies of less than 23 weeks come out of hospital and that virtually none at 22 weeks do. The Trent study, which has just been published, also says that no babies came out of hospital at 22 weeks. Is the hon. Lady saying that that body of evidence—the largest studies of the issue in this country, and among the largest in the world—should be disregarded? Does she not feel that all the people involved actually want—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Could I ask hon. Members to keep interventions brief? There are a huge number of Members wishing to take part in the debate.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I cannot disagree with a body of evidence, but neither can I agree that abortion at 24 weeks is acceptable.

John Pugh: The hon. Lady may not know that the recent drafts of the EPICure 2 study show a difference from the Trent study. They show an increased viability beyond 20 weeks.

Hon. Members: No.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is sitting there, and I concur with his views.  [ Interruption. ] Well, there is dissent, whether we like it or not. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has said that some babies born at 23 weeks are viable. Of the 193,000 abortions that we had last year, some of the late stage abortions, which have to be lethally injected in vitro before they are delivered, might have been viable, although I accept that the number itself would be small. I cannot stand here and say that it is all right to take those lives; I cannot do that. I would be much happier with 12 weeks—that is where I stand. Let women have the choice, but make it at 12 weeks.

Judy Mallaber: What choice?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: There is a choice. Pregnancy can be diagnosed days before a woman misses her period, let alone a few days afterwards. I cannot accept that we should keep the limit where it stands, when there is a possibility of a viable life being taken. I cannot accept that, and the vast majority of people in this country find that prospect deeply uncomfortable. Even if it were only one life, it could not be justified, but it is not just one. Within that 193,000, there are considerably more lives that could be viable, and our job is to protect the vulnerable. It is not for us to expedite what happens for the convenience of parents. For me, they have a right to life, and at that age, we should respect the fact that they should be with us.

William McCrea: Is it not true that it is so easy to dehumanise these children—these people—because we cannot hear their voice and we do not see their form?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: In the article referred to by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, the eminent doctor stated that no person seeking IVF treatment going for their first scan is told, "Oh, I can see your foetus." What is said is, "I can see your baby, and here is his feet, here is his head and here is his spine, and it is all looking fine." It is very convenient to hide behind the word "foetus" and other non-descriptors, because it makes it far easier to bear an abortion. It makes it far easier for all concerned to deal with the termination of a baby, which can go on to be a child—a very happy and loved child. Other studies suggest that those mothers who first elected to have an abortion and then changed their minds would have bitterly regretted such a decision a few years down the line, because the experience of the child is a different reality from the spectre sometimes painted by individuals in a hospital who think that they know what is best for a mother.
	I want to bring my comments to an end. I understand that lots of Members want to contribute to the debate today. I do not think that it is wrong to argue for a woman to have more information and advice at the most critical time in her life. It is not wrong to argue for a few days of rest time to consider what will be a profound decision. I hope that the House will agree to support my new clause.

Mark Pritchard: I rise to discuss new clause 3, but I will support any reduction in the current term limit, from 20 weeks downwards.
	Abortion is a sensitive and complex issue. It is a subject best debated in moderate and respectful language, and I believe that it has been thus far in this debate. Members of all parties have strongly held views, as we have already heard. They are views that I respect, although I may disagree with some of them. I would like to put a question to the Committee today. Has the common practice of abortion moved away from the spirit of the original Abortion Act 1967, which was amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990?
	The 1967 Act makes it crystal clear that when the termination of the unborn takes place, it should be
	"to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or"
	if the pregnancy would put the mother's life at risk; or
	"if the child...would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.".
	I think that most hon. Members accept those reasons, as well as reasons of incest and rape. There is, however, increasing concern inside and outside this House that far too many abortions are being carried out for social, rather than medical, reasons. Is it right that Britain carries out 200,000 abortions a year—600 abortions a day—and 6,200 of those abortions between 16 and 20 weeks? Is it right that 4,000 women in 2006 had had four repeat abortions, that nearly 1,000 women had had more than five abortions, and that some had had up to eight abortions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has already pointed out? Is that what our predecessors in 1967 set out to achieve in the original Act? There have been 6.7 million abortions in the United Kingdom since 1967.
	Far too many babies are terminated in the second and third trimesters. For those in the third trimester, abortion can often mean a lethal injection to the heart, and then the carving and slicing of the unborn child's body parts, tearing limb from limb, cracking the infant's skull and discarding the baby's body parts into a blood-filled plastic bucket. I challenge the media, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough: let us see on prime-time network television a late-term abortion for everybody to see. It is in the public interest, with millions of pounds of taxpayers' money being spent on abortion every year. Let the people of this country decide what goes on, what they will pay for and what they will stand for. Let us have these investigative reporters, these brave journalists who speak about the public interest on the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 or independent and Sky television put on that programme and let the people of this country decide for themselves. Why are they afraid of it? Why are they shying away? Let us see some real broadcasting for the public good.

Angela Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julie Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Pritchard: I will in a moment.
	The Government have an important part to play. For example, they could improve sex education and provide better access to contraceptive services. Nearly 70 per cent. of GPs do not offer a full choice of contraceptive methods. For too long, contraceptive services have been seen as the Cinderella service of public health, and I hope that all primary care trusts that are represented in this House today will do more to improve those services.

Angela Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Pritchard: In a moment, if I may. The hon. Lady has intervened already, and I want to give other hon. Members an opportunity later.
	A lot has been heard in this House and in the media about women's rights. I am happy to affirm those rights today, but a cursory glance at 19th-century and even early 20th-century social history reveals that it was the feminist movement, alarmed by a male-dominated medical profession, that led the charge against liberalising abortion laws. Proponents of liberal abortion laws—perhaps outdated now, given the advances in science in recent years—should tread carefully when invoking women en masse. Yes, I am a man, but that does not mean that I cannot represent the overwhelming opinion of women in my constituency, three quarters of whom support a reduction in the current limit. Hon. Ladies who hold a particular view should not say that they speak for all women in this country—they clearly do not.

Angela Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Pritchard: I am happy to give way to another hon. Member, but one or two are dominating the debate.

Julie Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those who seek late abortions are often the most desperate and vulnerable—sometimes very young—women, who would never wish to be in that position? Would he criminalise them?

Mark Pritchard: No, I would not. The hon. Lady makes an important point, but she underlines my earlier case for better sex education, better family health services and better options, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has set out, such as adoption services. It is a tragic paradox that, in ward A of a hospital, doctors paid for by the taxpayer are trying to create life while, in ward B, other doctors paid for by the taxpayer are terminating it. At some point, we need joined-up thinking about how to help those who are working so hard to have a baby. We are discarding babies by the thousand, yet would-be parents in my constituency—and, doubtless, in the great city of Cardiff—want to adopt a child. Why are we terminating so many unborn children?
	I should like to pay tribute to many hon. Members, but I start with my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). Unlike many leaders, he has shown courage and leadership in standing up and saying that he supports a reduction in the term limit. The Prime Minister has said that he will start to listen. If he wants to do that, he should listen to the two thirds of the British public who support a reduction in the abortion term limit, including three quarters of women. The overwhelming majority of GPs also support that reduction. Indeed, many are not prepared to perform abortions over 16 weeks, in which case people have to be brought over from abroad. If the Prime Minister is serious about listening, he will listen to the women of this country.

Nick Palmer: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is assisting his argument by introducing a political element. Does he agree that, whatever term limit we determine, the sort of neutral information for which my new clause provides will help women in the desperate position whereby they suddenly learn of a danger to their child about which they did not know?

Mark Pritchard: Absolutely. I look forward to considering new clause 8, which I fully support. I was not being partisan or party political—I simply stated the facts. If that is inconvenient or uncomfortable for hon. Members, I make no apology. The issue is important for the nation, and I was considering national leadership, not partisan politics. New clause 3 shows that I have cross-party support.
	There are consequences for mothers. Abortion is not risk free or without cost to the mother. We have heard about higher rates of mental illness, an increased risk of breast cancer and the possibility of future premature births. All the facts need to be presented to women, informing them of the risks of abortion and the associated costs, possibly later in their lives.
	Why 16 weeks? Scientific evidence increasingly suggests that unborn children feel pain at 16 weeks. That is not simply a stress response; it is a physiological response, perhaps not the same as in a fully grown adult, but a physical and even emotional response beyond the norms of passive reflex. Pain is felt, which is why specialist, gifted surgeons who perform surgery on babies in the womb use anaesthetic. Now, 4D imaging reveals that 16-week-old unborn babies are very much alive and kicking, although their limbs are too small to be felt by the mothers. Those who have had children know that they are likely to feel kicking at around 17 weeks in the case of a second baby and 19 weeks in the case of a first baby. However, just because the mother does not feel kicking, it does not mean that there is no leg kicking.
	Sixteen-week-old unborn babies are very small human beings, but they have many of the faculties of newborn babies. I will probably get told off for doing this, but I have a picture of a 16-week-old unborn baby. It speaks for itself.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been told off.

Mark Pritchard: I am always being told off, Mr. Gale, so I shall simply add that to the list.
	That picture, like the one on my website, is not a tissue blob or an unrecognisable collection of cells, but a living, small human being. Even some botched abortions between 16 and 20 weeks' gestation revealed the extent of their humanity. One study in the west midlands revealed that 14.7 per cent. of the abortions undertaken ended in a live birth. Indeed, babies born alive after failed abortions are increasingly common.
	An expert from the International Association for the Study of Pain wrote in volume XIV of the "Clinical Updates":
	"Our current understanding of development provides the anatomical structures, the physiological mechanisms and the functional evidence for pain perception developing in the second trimester."
	I believe that the unborn are fearfully and wonderfully made. Terminating a child that has been woven and knitted in the womb should be a choice of last resort, not the latest manifestation of Britain's throwaway society.

Andy Reed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Pritchard: Briefly.

Hon. Members: He's just walked in.

Andy Reed: I have been sitting here throughout. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, as someone who was adopted in 1964 three years before the 1967 Act, that—to revert to his original concept—we want a massive reduction in the number of abortions? It is emotive to talk about the number of weeks. Would it not be better if the Committee were to return to the original concept of the law, which the hon. Gentleman has rightly read out, and ensure that abortions are not a matter of convenience, but are undertaken for the reasons in the original Act. Would that not serve the country better than talking about the number of weeks?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Again, I appeal to hon. Members to keep interventions brief. We have three Front-Bench spokesman waiting to speak, two hours of debate and at least 15 hon. Members wishing to contribute. We must show each other some courtesy.

Mark Pritchard: Thank you, Mr. Gale. It was a long intervention, but it was worth while, because the hon. Gentleman has made some personal and valid points. My answer is that I hope that we can do both those things.
	I often wonder, given Britain's skills shortage, how many of the 200,000 aborted last year could have been the engineers and maths teachers that we need. Indeed—and not on a light note—how many could have been the English cricketers and football players that we need? A lot of talent has been lost.
	I hope that, given the cross-party support for new clause 3, we will have an opportunity to divide on the matter and to enter the same Lobby. I hope that the House will have a chance to express its view on foetal pain, sentience, the sanctity of life and public opinion.

Chris McCafferty: Because the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) made some political points, may I say at the outset how sad I am that the former hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the late Gwyneth Dunwoody, cannot be here to speak in this debate? Gwyneth was a great champion of women's rights. I think that she would have been disappointed, as I am, that this debate is, with some very honourable exceptions, dividing on party political lines. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] It is true.
	It is clear from the last three speeches that abortion is an emotional topic. It provokes strong reactions in almost all societies and is clearly doing so in the House this evening. There seems to be an unspoken agreement that women should be patronised when they become pregnant and steered towards the expected outcome of carrying that pregnancy to term. People who are not directly involved with unwanted pregnancies dominate the public debate. Not surprisingly, they operate on wrong assumptions about how a pregnant woman should be treated and cared for.
	The first gross misconception is the assumption that restricting abortion or making it illegal would in some way be pro-life. The error in that argument is that the exclusive focus is on the foetus. The woman is totally ignored, as if she does not count. A clear example of the low value put on women's health by the anti-choice lobby is the recent Polish court case in which a woman was forced to become nearly blind as a direct result of being denied an abortion. That woman's sight had less value than upholding her pregnancy. I hope that hon. Members will not go down that route tonight, because that position implies that one can protect life by restricting access to abortion or making it illegal. However, there is no evidence at all that restricting abortion reduces the numbers.

Michael Jabez Foster: Is my hon. Friend not pursuing a false premise? No one is suggesting that the life or the health of the mother should be compromised. We are talking about healthy mothers and healthy babies.

Chris McCafferty: Perhaps my hon. Friend is not aware of the recent National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines on scans, which are quite clear. The recent guidelines, in "Antenatal care: Routine care for the healthy pregnant woman", from March 2008—

Ann Widdecombe: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Chris McCafferty: No, I will not give way. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] I will not give way—it is important to make this point. Those guidelines say:
	"Pregnant women should be offered an ultrasound scan to screen for structural anomalies, ideally between 18 and 20 weeks' gestation",
	which is medical speak for up to 21 weeks, with the emphasis on "ideally". We all routinely campaign for NICE guidelines to be implemented, do we not? I therefore have to assume that hon. Members also believe in those guidelines, or perhaps they are the exception.
	What has been proven to reduce abortions is comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to effective contraception and early safe abortion services. Opposition Members might not like it, but it is an established fact that Dutch women have the lowest abortion rates in the world, and that is because they have that access. Far from reducing the frequency of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, restricting abortion forces women to resort to illegal and mostly unsafe abortions, which endangers their health and their lives. That is why virtually all developed countries legalised abortions in the previous century—because they could no longer accept the tragic suffering and loss of their female population.
	If women have no access to legal abortion, they resort to illegal means. Women will go to any lengths and will take any risk to end an unwanted pregnancy—and "any" means exactly that.

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris McCafferty: No; I want to make some progress.
	Illegal abortion is extremely risky. It is usually performed late and is frequently performed by an untrained person. Besides the medical risks, abortions performed under illegal conditions are socially unjust, because women with means can and will pay for safe abortions, leaving poor women at the mercy of illegal settings and the high risk that they bring.
	Another fundamental misconception in the abortion debate is that society needs to intervene to ensure that pregnant women make the right decision. All restrictions in reproductive health imply that pregnant women must be protected from themselves, so that they do not make a hasty decision against having a child; we have heard about that this evening. Total strangers declare themselves advocates of a pregnant woman's foetus. Such a position not only violates the fundamental rights of women but is an incredible insult to women, being based on an arrogant and unthinking assumption that women in general are inferior to men.

Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Chris McCafferty: No, I am not giving way.
	The pregnant woman is the only person who can make a responsible decision in the best interests of herself, her family and her foetus. Abortion should be a private decision, between the patient and her doctor, just like any other medical treatment. Why is it so difficult for societies, even those such as ours, to give the power to decide to those who carry the consequences? That is another basic misconception—that women with an unwanted pregnancy should enter into the decision-making process only after counselling with someone they do not know. Apparently, a total stranger is in a better position to judge what is in the best interests of the woman. How ridiculous.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Would my hon. Friend say that a child of 12 is a woman who knows her own mind and is capable of making a decision of that kind?

Chris McCafferty: No, we cannot say that a child of 12 is a woman.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: But she can be pregnant.

Chris McCafferty: She could be pregnant; but I would like to think that she would not be. If we had compulsory sexual health and relationship education in all our schools, there might be a better chance of that child not being pregnant. However, I accept that that does not preclude rape, incest or the unfortunate situations in which young girls can find themselves. I would hope that such a young person would be advised carefully by her family, not a stranger. That is my point entirely. Such decisions are always best taken within the framework of the family, not with strangers.

Iris Robinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Chris McCafferty: No, I am not giving way again.
	Restrictions may be well intended. I understand about the religious views of many hon. Members speaking in this debate and I know that they are well intentioned, but obviously I take a different view. The problem with restrictions, however well intended, is that they do not lead to a reduced frequency of unwanted pregnancies or abortions.

Mark Durkan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Chris McCafferty: No, I am not giving way.
	Restrictions do not even lead to an improvement in the quality of care, and they certainly do not lead to an increase in the birth of wanted children. What restrictions do is delay gestational age at abortion, increase the risks to the physical and psychological health of the woman and increase the costs, but without any obvious benefits.

Ann Widdecombe: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. The logic of her argument about restrictions being inappropriate is that women should be able to have abortion on demand right up to birth. Do I take it that she would not approve of that?

Chris McCafferty: I do not recall having said that. What I am saying is that putting restrictions in the way of women who have already made a difficult and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) said, traumatic decision—she used that word about three times—is just prolonging the agony. Doing so is cruel and unnecessary. There are increased costs to society, but no benefits.
	Mr. Gale— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Hon. Members: "Sir Michael!"]—I mean Sir Michael; I am not sure how to address you in this debate. Society has shown impressive creativity in the past, in introducing all sorts of ingenious restrictions on access to abortion, none of which have shown any evidence-based benefit to the people involved. In most countries, and indeed here, the legal framework and the requirements for an abortion do not reflect the needs of women with an unwanted pregnancy; rather, they reflect the personal morality and the misconceptions of people who are both professionally inexperienced and personally not involved. Why is it so difficult to do the most obvious thing—give the power to decide to those who are most directly involved? Women carry a completely disproportionate share of the burden in reproduction, but where are their rights? And tonight we are talking about taking them away.
	I say to the male Members of this House—they are in the considerable majority—that I recognise that they cannot get pregnant, let alone have an abortion themselves. I suspect that most of them are profoundly relieved that that is the case. Most women would believe that we would not be here having this debate if men could do that, but it is in men's own interests to maintain the reproductive health of women, because most are directly affected by and dependent on it. They should, therefore, be arguing not to restrict women's rights to choose, but for conditions that permit women to end an unwanted pregnancy, if necessary, in the best way possible for them and without unnecessary suffering. As we heard earlier, termination of a wanted pregnancy must be one of the very hardest decisions that women and couples have to make. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, it is traumatic.
	The NICE guidelines, which I mentioned earlier, are very clear. Those new guidelines say that pregnant women should ideally—I stress that word—be offered an ultrasound scan at between 18 weeks and 20 weeks, which means up to 21 weeks. As I said, Members in all parts of the House always campaign for NICE guidelines, and I have to assume that that one is not an exception. I also say to Members that unless they do not accept the NICE guidance in this particular case, it would be wholly inconsistent for them to vote to lower the upper limit to 22 weeks or even less, because they would clearly be removing any element of choice from the process. Any reduction below the current 24-week limit would leave little or no room for women and couples to make a responsible, considered choice when a potentially serious abnormality is detected.
	Of course, I agree that legislation should always adapt to take account of scientific and technical progress, but all the recent independent peer-reviewed research has shown very clearly that survival at below 24 weeks' gestation has not improved, despite advances in other aspects of antenatal care and the care of premature babies. When the 24-week limit was approved by Parliament in 1990, a key argument was that that was the stage at which the foetus was considered viable. It is the considered view of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Association of Perinatal Medicine that there is no evidence of a significant improvement in the survival of extremely premature babies below 24 weeks' gestation in the UK within the last 18 years. The recent EPICure and Trent studies that were referred to earlier also say the same thing. There is no significant statistical improvement in survival under 24 weeks.
	I have said many times in this Chamber—I will keep on saying it until Members start to listen—that the best way of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions is to improve women's access to contraception, as well as educating women and men about sexual health, and to make sexual health and relationship education compulsory in all our schools. In contrast, any reduction in the upper time limit would force a very small number of vulnerable women to continue a pregnancy against their will. Proposals to reduce the time limit do not even take into consideration the terrible plight of women who have a wanted pregnancy but discover a foetal abnormality at a later stage.
	I, too, want to see a reduction in the number of women seeking abortion—I imagine that all Members in all parts of the Committee do—and a reduction in the gestation period at which abortions take place, but late-term abortions are very rare. In 2006, less than 1.5 per cent. of all abortions took place after 20 weeks, and of those, a mere 0.7 per cent.—a tiny fraction—were carried out at 22 weeks or later.
	I say to Members that they should vote for 22 weeks or less if they really are anti-choice. They should vote for 22 weeks or less if they really believe that a woman should be required to continue a late-diagnosed pregnancy even if her health is at risk or the foetus is abnormal. They should vote for 22 weeks or less if they do not believe that such difficult decisions should, wherever possible, be made within the family. For the purposes of giving the Committee an opportunity to vote positively on 24 weeks—23 weeks and six days is the medical definition of 24 weeks, the status quo—I say to Members that they should support the status quo if they are pro-life, pro-quality of life or pro a woman's life. They should support the status quo if they are pro women's rights—after all, women's rights are human rights. They should support the status quo if they are pro reproductive rights, because reproductive rights are also human rights. They should support the status quo if they are pro-humanity, because any reduction of the upper limit would be cynical, cruel, ill-informed and inhumane.

Michael Penning: May I say what an honour and privilege it is, as a relatively new Member of the House, to stand at the Dispatch Box and speak in such an important debate?
	I know that it is normal to make kind comments about the previous speaker, and I will do my level best. Every hon. Member has the right to their own personal views, and I listened intently to the comments of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty). I agreed with her in part but not on most of what she said. She made very important points about contraception, which I will come back to later in my speech. There was one fundamental point that she got wrong—saying that this was all about religion. I am speaking at this Dispatch Box not from a religious standpoint, but from a moral standpoint. From that perspective, I must emphasise that the views that I am expressing this evening are my personal views, not those of my party. I have not discussed with any member of my party, the leadership or those on my Front Bench how I should vote later this evening. I think that that is exactly the way in which the Committee should be making those decisions.
	It is a shame that Members have not been given the opportunity to speak for much longer than the three hours allowed for. That is not in any way a party political view; it is obvious from what Chairmen of the Committee have said this evening that many Members wish to speak. Many would have liked to speak for much longer than they had the opportunity to do and, sadly, it seems that some hon. Members will not have the opportunity to speak.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the time that we have to debate these matters. Does he agree that bolting abortion on to the Bill in the first place was a big mistake, and that it would be perfectly honourable for Members to decide on a free-vote basis to vote tonight against every single amendment concerned with abortion on the basis that it has been tagged on to the HFE Bill in the absence of a royal commission and proper independent assessment of all the aspects concerning abortion?

Michael Penning: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It appears that we may have 10 sittings on the Bill on the Committee Corridor. We are where we are: the amendments have been tabled, and we have got three hours. With that in mind, I will not take a huge number of interventions. Other hon. Members have been very generous in giving way, but I am conscious of those Members who wish to contribute.
	Since 1968—I apologise if I am using figures that have been used earlier, although I do not think they have—5.5 million pregnancies in this country have been terminated. As we heard earlier, the latest available figures show that nearly 200,000 were terminated in 2006. The figure has risen dramatically since 1969, when 5.2 women in 1,000 had an abortion. The figure is now 18.3 per 1,000, which is a huge number. I believe that everyone in the House would like to see a massive reduction in the number of abortions taking place in this country. This is not about choice; I want everybody to have a choice, but surely, in a compassionate society such as ours, we would all want to see fewer terminations taking place.

Desmond Swayne: May I ask my hon. Friend to be careful in the language that he uses? A great many euphemisms have been used in the debate, including babies being referred to as "foetuses" and abortions being referred to as "terminations". Does he recall that, when the Russians finally admitted to having downed the Korean jumbo jet, they said that they had terminated it, rather than having shot it down? Is it not grotesque that "family planning" is used as a euphemism for abortion in this country?

Michael Penning: My hon. Friend has every right to his own views, although I happen to disagree with them. I will use the terminology with which I feel happy, and I am sure that he will use the terminology with which he feels happy.

Iris Robinson: rose—

Michael Penning: I should like to make a little progress.
	I want to move on to the sheer quantity of abortions taking place in this country today, and to the fact that 32 per cent. of women who have an abortion have had an abortion before. I find that enormously disturbing, both as a father and as a husband. Earlier today, I was having a conversation with an old friend who has daughters of a similar age to my own daughters. My daughters are 17 and 19 years old. This gentleman is not a politician, and he asked me how I was going to vote this evening. He told me that, the other evening, he had had a disturbing conversation with his 19-year-old daughter, who had been on Facebook, having a conversation with one of her friends from college. Her friend is already a single mother, and she told my friend's daughter that she was now pregnant again. My friend's daughter said to her, "This is really serious. What are you going to do?" Her friend replied that she was going to have an abortion. When my friend's daughter observed that this was a very serious matter, her friend replied that she had had two abortions already. I accept that that is not the norm, but it illustrates the failure of this country to address that problem.
	I am not in any way taking a view on that person's individual circumstances. I am not there; I am not her father—I do not know whether she has a father. We do know, however, that it is not good for her to be in that position, and we must do everything that we possibly can—

Judy Mallaber: rose—

Michael Penning: I should like to make some progress.
	I know that, in some of her TV interviews, the Minister has communicated the priority of reducing the time that women have to wait for an abortion. I agree with her. Much of our debate tonight has been about how long people have had to wait for results and to find out whether their baby is in some way deformed. I find it difficult to understand why, in this country in the 21st century, we cannot get medical science to move forward.
	The hon. Member for Calder Valley said earlier that we must listen to NICE. I wish that she would be kind enough to listen to me; I listened to quite a lot of her contribution to the debate. NICE can only work with the legislation that is set before it by the House. If NICE had a limit of 20 or 22 weeks to work with, I have no doubt that it would bring down its recommendations in order to conform with the House's legislation. NICE can only work within the framework of the laws that the House sets out. I would very much like to see NICE recommending much earlier results from scans.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) about the necessity for time to think. Indeed, I have voted for such provisions myself since I came to the House. She also made an important point about gentlemen who have vasectomies. I had a vasectomy on the national health. I went to see my GP, who said, "I want to speak to your wife." My wife and I both sat there and agreed that a vasectomy was the way forward for us as our own personal form of contraception. The GP then sent us away for three or four days, after which my wife and I both saw the consultant, and again we both agreed that a vasectomy was the way forward. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that if that time for thought is right for a man having a vasectomy—which, by the way, can be reversed, albeit painfully—there must be a provision for more time to think and consult when it comes to such a serious decision as having an abortion.
	I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said in his thoughtful speech on Second Reading last week. He rightly called for society to step forward and address its failings, particularly in relation to young people, to the poor, to those who have suffered a family breakdown, and to inadequate social support, especially in education. I am not just talking about sex education in schools. Education covers a wide variety of aspects, and it particularly needs to address the lack of knowledge about contraception, particularly in the most vulnerable and economically deprived areas of the country. I am not going to baffle the Committee with more figures—that is going to happen all through this debate—but the vast majority of people who end up having an abortion come from the most socially deprived parts of the country.
	The hon. Member for Calder Valley said earlier that those who could afford to pay for an abortion would do so, and she was quite right. However, if we look at the figures, it is those who can least afford— [ Interruption. ]

Michael Lord: Order. It would be helpful if hon. Members could listen to this part of the debate.

Michael Penning: Thank you, Sir Michael. As this is such an important debate, I would have thought any meetings that needed to take place could take place outside the Chamber.
	Sex education is extremely important, but my own daughters tell me that when they had sex education at school, it was useless. I served in the military at the age of 16, and when I meet servicemen and women around the country, they tell me that more sex education is being given to the troops of this country than ever has been to pupils in school. If we are more proactive about giving sex education to the military than to those in our schools and colleges, there is something missing here.

William Cash: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the need for education. Does he agree that, apart from any technical advice that might be offered, it is absolutely essential to get right the question of social responsibility in that educational process? The question of right and wrong, in relation to when sex should be engaged in and when it should not, is one of the main reasons why we are in such difficulty today.

Michael Penning: I completely agree with my hon. Friend; with the choice of whether to have sex with one's partner comes responsibility.
	On the question of viability, we have heard a great deal about studies of the viability of the foetus—or the baby, in some hon. Members' terminology; I think that I agree with that terminology. If there were any doubt in my mind that a baby might be viable, I find it difficult to see how the Committee would not vote to lower the limit. Viability is everything. If even a single baby could live, with the help of modern medical science, that baby deserves the chance to live. That is where I, personally, am coming from this evening.
	I have not taken up any time in the debate to talk about the individual contributions that have been made this evening. This is not a winding-up speech; it is a contribution. However, we have heard passionate speeches from those with deep-seated personal views, be they religious or non-religious, pro-life or pro-choice.
	I leave the Committee not with the full text of what was sent to one of my hon. Friends this evening, but with a summary of it, which I do to protect the relevant consultant. This consultant e-mailed one of my colleagues this evening to say that in one room in the hospital where he worked they were successfully looking after premature babies of 23 and 24 weeks, who were going on to live normal lives.

Angela Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Penning: No. He continued by saying that in the next room, his colleagues were terminating babies of the same age.

Angela Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Penning: No. This consultant said that that was morally unacceptable and asked us please to vote for 20 weeks. That is what I am going to do this evening.

Dawn Primarolo: This is a very important debate, even if I have expressed views outside the House and as an individual Member about what I think is the appropriate place for this discussion. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on his opening remarks. I do not agree with him, but he made clear what is going on in this evening's debate.
	There are those in the House who oppose abortion; there are those who oppose abortion, but who believe that in order to prevent it they should support a series of incremental reductions in what is currently available; and there are those who support abortion and seek to find a reference point or an anchor on which to decide the availability of abortions with reference to time limits and other criteria. Although I think it is very important for us to approach the issue from the position of our personal experiences as well, in my opinion it is dangerous to replace evidence by anecdotes and then move to general assertions about the best way to make informed decisions in this difficult debate.
	One issue repeatedly cropping up this evening is that of the evidence for a reduction in the upper gestational limit for abortions of 24 weeks. We have heard and will continue to hear arguments ranging from maintaining the 24-week upper limit to various reductions. The hon. Member for Gainsborough made it clear where he thought it should be, on the basis of his personal choice rather than evidence.
	The upper gestational limit for termination of pregnancy under section 1(1)(a) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was set by Parliament at 24 weeks because the scientific evidence at the time was that the threshold of viability had increased and babies were increasingly surviving at 24 weeks and above. I make that point to make it clear that the upper gestational limit for abortions on ground (a) has always been linked to the potential viability of the foetus outside the womb .

Ann Widdecombe: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Just one moment. That was the case in 1967, it was the case in 1990, and it is certainly the case now. I am happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who entered the House in the same year I did. In every debate on abortion, she has been clear that she is against it, just as I have been clear that I believe it is a woman's right to choose. I am happy to give way to her.

Ann Widdecombe: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady. She has said that viability is the determining factor, but does she accept that there is a genuine debate as to whether that should be the only determining factor? Since 1990, there has been a very substantial body of evidence—and I do mean evidence—about foetal pain and distress. If the child being aborted cannot live, what on earth is the point of the lethal injection?

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Lady does not need to stress her words; I can understand the word "evidence" whether she says it slowly or quickly. My point was that on every occasion that the House has considered this issue, it has used viability, as determined by the evidence from the medical profession, in order to provide its starting point. I would absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady and other Members that this is a very difficult decision to make and that a series of points need to be considered. The right hon. Lady happens to come out in a different place in the argument from me.

Ann Widdecombe: rose—

Charles Walker: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: No; if I can make a little progress, I will give way if I have time later. I want to be brief so that other Members can speak.
	My main point about the time limit is that in the late '80s there was a clear consensus from the medical profession that the age at which a foetus should be presumed to be viable should be changed from 28 to 24 weeks, and there is no evidence at the present time that that position has changed. In fact, the British Association of Perinatal Medicine, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the faculty for sexual and reproductive healthcare of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists all concur with that view.
	The current clinical evidence shows that although there have been medical advances in caring for premature babies, only a small number of babies born at under 24 weeks' gestation can survive. For those that do, there may be many questions about their quality of life—most have severe problems—whereas the situation improves markedly at 24 to 25 weeks, which reaffirms why the limit of 24 weeks was chosen.

Charles Walker: Does the right hon. Lady not accept that some children—not many, but some—born prematurely between 22 and 24 weeks go on to adulthood and have productive lives? They are living between 22 and 24 weeks.

Dawn Primarolo: That is not the issue that I was putting to the Committee.

Charles Walker: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: No, just a minute. I was making the point that nothing has changed over that time period. The difficult choices that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and others have identified existed in 1990 and they exist now. We all know that the circumstances in which women have abortions are not easy; the decision is difficult, there are many complex reasons, but up until this evening the House has chosen to base its judgment on the evidence. We have heard mention of that evidence from the EPICure studies and, most recently, from the Trent regional study, which continues to demonstrate that despite improvements in some neonatal units, there is no improvement in the survival rates of those very young babies.
	Reducing the current time limit would have a significant impact on a small number of women who seek late abortions. The Committee must face the fact that some of those women, if forced to give birth to unwanted children, will continue not to wish to do so. Having made that decision, they will travel abroad and seek abortions elsewhere. Would it not be appalling if we drove women back to where they were before the 1967 Act?

Pete Wishart: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: I will give way briefly, but then I must make progress.

Pete Wishart: I wonder whether the Minister has seen the results of a study by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. It conducted an audit of women seeking late abortion services, and what it found was truly appalling. Its findings showed that it was the most vulnerable women—those who had been subject to domestic abuse, those who were teenagers, those who had all sorts of chaotic lifestyle and drug issues—who would be punished by any reduction in the time limit.

Dawn Primarolo: I have seen the results of that study, and I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.
	This is the challenge that is presented to the Committee. If life were always only about simple choices and clear-cut decisions it would be so much easier, but we are talking about complex lives. I am thinking particularly of very vulnerable young women, or older women who, for a number of reasons, may not have discovered their pregnancy. I am also thinking about foetal abnormality. Does the Committee really believe that it should remove consideration of those few but none the less vulnerable women as individuals without the support of evidence? Of course, for Members who are completely opposed to abortion the answer is yes, they would take those rights away, but I think that that would be a retrograde step.

Phil Willis: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I really must make some progress.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the Minister. Is it not worth putting on record the fact that only roughly 1 per cent. of babies born to mums who go into labour at 22 weeks are born alive and leave the maternity unit, and that half those babies have severe abnormalities? Moreover, people presenting for abortion at 22 or 23 weeks would have had to be in the system at least two weeks earlier, which means that they are probably presenting to the clinicians at 20 or 21 weeks.

Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman has put the figures on the record, I shall not waste the Committee's time by repeating them, but he went on to make a very important point about the complex reasons for which some women may present late after deciding on an abortion. They may have struggled greatly with that decision.
	I do not accept the idea that women do this lightly. I cannot believe that I heard it said it was like going to the hairdresser. I cannot believe that women would make the decision in that way. I know that they do not.  [Interruption.] I am not arguing with those who are absolutely opposed to abortion. They will put their case here tonight. I am addressing only the case which I have made clear that I support—

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Sir Michael. Is it in order for a Member, even a Minister, to misrepresent deeply something said during the debate by a Member who is not here to correct what has been said?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that these are basically matters for debate, not matters for the Chair. I also think that all Members must take serious responsibility for the words that they use.

Dawn Primarolo: Thank you, Sir Michael.

Iris Robinson: On a point of order, Sir Michael. Is it right for the Minister to indicate that she will not hear anyone who takes a view that is opposed to that of those who oppose the right to life?

The Second Deputy Chairman: These are very serious matters. Clearly, it is entirely up to the Member who has the Floor to decide whether to give way to any other Member. [Interruption.] I repeat that that these are very serious matters. The debate has been civilised and organised until now, but I think that all Members should choose their words very carefully.

Dawn Primarolo: Thank you, Sir Michael.

Iris Robinson: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: I will give way to the hon. Lady, but let me say first, Sir Michael, that I was following your suggestion that our contributions should be short so that others could join in the debate. Continuing to take interventions will prolong my speech, but I am happy—as I have been in previous debates—to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson).

Iris Robinson: I thank the Minister. May I suggest that she visit a special needs school in her constituency, where she can see some beautiful and wonderful children with Down's syndrome and other "special needs" disabilities? Is she telling us that it is right to decide, just because there is some abnormality in the foetus, that that eliminates a child's right to life?

Dawn Primarolo: I did not say that, I would not say that, and the hon. Lady is trying to put words into my mouth that conform with what she thinks the argument should be. The point I am making is that there is no scientific evidence to warrant a reduction in the time limit. Of course it will be up to the House to decide, after examining the evidence, whether it feels there is a strong case for that and it is necessary. My point is that the evidence does not support that, even if some Members feel that they personally should vote for a reduction.

Mark Durkan: The right hon. Lady has placed a lot of emphasis on the viability test having been the basis on which the House has in the past decided on term limits, as though for anybody to think about any other reference point is somehow beyond the law and subversive, but will she answer the question that I think the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) was asking: why does the viability test go out of the window for foetuses that are deemed to have a foetal abnormality? Why do the viability test and the term limit go out of the window for them, so that there can be terminations up to the point of birth?

Dawn Primarolo: Because the 1967 Act, as amended, provided for that, and I am making my comments only with regard to the legislation as it currently operates and whether or not there is any indication that there should be a change in the criteria.
	New clause 6 seeks to remove disability as a ground for abortion and to extend the excluded grounds to include gender, race and sexuality. If that ground is repealed, those women carrying a child with a serious handicap may be forced against their wishes to continue with the pregnancy. In some cases, that will increase the risk to the woman as well. We must remember that we are talking here about very serious handicaps, such as the absence of a large part of the brain. Is it right to force a woman to carry such a child until it dies in the womb or is born with no chance of survival? That is the kind of very difficult question that we need to confront this evening.

David Burrowes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Dawn Primarolo: With respect, I have given way quite a lot, and I need to conclude my points.
	I shall now turn to the measure preventing abortion on the grounds of gender, race or sexual orientation. That is unnecessary, as abortion on the grounds of gender alone is already illegal and it is not possible to determine the race or sexual orientation of a foetus.
	New clause 7 seeks to require doctors to provide set information to women and introduce a five-day waiting period. The fact is that every woman's circumstances and level of understanding are different, and the information and support provided should be impartial and tailored to the woman's individual needs. I think the Committee would agree that forcing a very young girl whose pregnancy is due to sexual abuse to receive information on the development of the foetus—which the doctor would be legally obliged to do if this amendment were accepted—would be very distressing and, to many of us, unacceptable. This new clause would also effectively introduce a five-day waiting period, which would affect over 98 per cent. of women, causing further delays and unwanted stress and anxiety.
	As has been mentioned, new clause 8 would require that information and counselling be available, but that is required now. The professional regulatory bodies lay down statutory guidance to health professionals on what information should be provided so that the woman is properly informed.
	Tonight every Member present has to make a series of difficult and complex decisions on highly sensitive issues, and I recognise how challenging that is for all of us, including me. In reaching a decision, it seems to me that each Member must assess the evidence that has been presented and vote accordingly. However, in doing so, first, they must be satisfied that the scientific evidence has changed, and we have heard that the consensus regarding medical evidence has not changed: there is no new evidence. Any reduction in the time limit will have a greater impact on teenagers and the very vulnerable who do not recognise their pregnancy, giving them untold additional anxiety and challenges. The Committee has the right, of course, to do this, but in doing so it must ask itself, "Is there any real evidence for a change, or is it just that Members of the House are against abortion?"

John Pugh: I want to make it clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) did, that I stand here as a Liberal Democrat but not for the Liberal Democrats; I speak in a personal capacity. Although there is policy here, and although a former leader of the Liberals, Lord Steel, piloted the Abortion Act, the Committee will be aware that other prominent Liberals, such as Lord Alton, left the Liberal party over the Act. I personally believe that there is a Liberal case to be put for a review of current legislation. I should also point out that as a man, I necessarily speak on this issue with a degree of natural caution and reticence. I can have no clear idea at all what it is like to be pregnant.
	The most depressing thing that I read recently on this topic was in yesterday's edition of  The Guardian. The usually sound journalist, Jackie Ashley, after contrasting opposing views and the very different beliefs behind them, wrote:
	"There is no sensible conversation between the opposing views to be had."
	That is borne out by my own observation of the House so far in debating any abortion issue. Such debates are emotive; related ten-minute Bills, unusually, are voted down without consideration; slogans replace arguments; the absolute right to life is starkly set against the absolute right to choose; rhetorical assassination replaces reasoned arguments. It is to be regretted that in the run-up to this debate, personal remarks by Members about Members have served to disfigure and to some extent to inflame debate.
	Despite profound moral differences, there is some common ground: we all believe that the abortion rate in the UK is far too high; we would all prefer a world in which there was no abortion, nor demand for it; we all recognise that our laws are among the most permissive; and we all qualify the rights that we claim: even the Catholic Church sanctions therapeutic abortion, and even pro-choice charities object to some choices. Where we differ is over the grounds, and consequently the limits, of abortion. I argue that, irrespective of any religious view, the justification for abortion becomes enormously harder from the moment when the foetus becomes conscious or responsive to pain. I also argue that we cannot be completely certain when that moment occurs, but that a precautionary principle should apply, and, where consciousness may exist, we must act as though it does. Frankly, there is no basis for giving anything a right other than that it is conscious, and there is no more significant event in the life of any being than becoming conscious.
	I note, too, the long and undistinguished history of denying full consciousness, or degrees of sentience, to those whom we choose to exploit, whether it is animals, fellow primates—or slaves. I accept, however, that the area of foetal sentience is a grey one and that the Committee, sadly, does not want to build the law around it or to apply a precautionary principle. The issue for the Committee is independent viability.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has made the point that breaking the link between viability and abortion limits would leave legislators groping around for another criterion on which to base limits. He is fundamentally right on that point, although viability is not to be understood here in the ordinary sense. Most babies, and some adults, are not capable of surviving without massive intervention from parents or carers. They are not independently viable. My one-year-old grandchild is not independently viable. Viability here is used in the technical sense:
	"the capacity of the foetus to survive—even with assistance—outside the womb."
	Everyone agrees that such a definition self-evidently must cover different cases as medical technology improves, and need not be related—should not be related—to a fixed gestation period, which is why few rational people can object to a review of the law.
	Some people think that the dates should be changed, if some foetuses are viable at a given date, for example, 23 weeks; we are talking about a significant percentage in that regard. Some think that the dates should be changed if any foetuses are viable at a given date, and others, including, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, think that the dates should be changed if most or the gross average of foetuses are viable. People choose their own option, but anyone who thinks that the dates should be changed if, and only if, foetuses show themselves to be viable on average at a particular stage must also bear in mind the fact that the foetuses that nature delivers early—the research group that we have all been talking about—are most likely to have had clinically troubled pregnancies and individual problems, which is not the case with aborted babies or babies in general at that stage.

Evan Harris: My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech. The vast majority of premature births are due to maternal factors, not to foetal factors; the foetuses are not sick in those cases. Different definitions of viability exist, and mine might be different from others, but surely it is best to follow the one provided by paediatricians and neonatologists, who devote their lives to dealing with those tiny babies. They are clear about their definition, which is that the viability threshold is the point at which a foetus would have a decent chance—a more than 15 per cent. chance, for example—of surviving outside the woman. That is why they say that there is no evidence of a significant improvement in the survival levels of pre-term infants below 24 weeks' gestation in the past 18 years. The paediatricians say that, and we should follow their advice.

John Pugh: I have discussed clinically troubled pregnancies, and I presume that that covers the maternal factor. I see no reason why the Committee must use the same definition as clinicians.
	The moral reality is that someone who aborts a baby at 22 weeks, might be—they cannot know that this is not the case—aborting a baby or foetus that is viable, within the narrow meaning of the legislation, which is indisputably the case, or in any other sense. There are people in our world who are in no way inferior to us in capacity, intelligence and beauty, despite being born at 22 weeks. That is a fact, and it ought to give us cause for reflection.
	Quantitatively, as the EPICure 2 study shows—the Minister and I saw the draft findings last week—there is a statistically significant increase in the survival rate of premature babies at 24 weeks and an increase, although not a statistically significant one, in respect of 23 weeks. We need to explore further exactly why that is happening. It is false to say that no new evidence is available. EPICure 2 differs markedly from the Trent study; it is more widely based and it shows something different. I freely admit that the EPICure 2 study does not show a decrease in the level of disabilities that, sadly, premature babies endure. However, morality in this case is not a numbers game; the exact percentage surviving is not the big issue. One cannot easily argue on Monday that the percentage mix of a human-animal embryo is of no decisive moral significance, and then on Tuesday argue that percentages matter.
	May I conclude by addressing three counter-arguments? I sense—this came across in what the Minister said—that many who are opposed to even modest reform feel obliged to hold an imaginary line; they feel that if they concede 23 weeks or 22 weeks, who knows where the case for abortion may go. The Minister said that we could be right back at the pre-1967 situation. Again, that is the mirror image of the slippery slope argument that we had yesterday: if we allow pointless experiments to be carried out on hybrid embryos until 14 days, some scientists will make progress in creating human-animal embryos. As in yesterday's case, all one can say is that the law says what the law says. It clearly does not follow from the fact that the law forbids something at 25 weeks that it is bound to forbid it at 23, 22 or 20 weeks. If it forbids something at 22 weeks, it might still allow it to happen at 20 weeks.
	Another argument was made on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), and I take it very seriously. She argued that many, but by no means all, late abortions are special cases; I believe that she mentioned under-age girls, menopausal women and foetuses with late-detected abnormalities. I think that the statistics show that 40 per cent. of such cases result, in a sense, from late choices. That is what is odd about them; they involve people who made a late choice to have an abortion.

Jacqui Lait: The hon. Gentleman has paraphrased the list that I suggested on Second Reading, because it included women who were menopausal, very young girls and those who have mental health or learning disability problems. I think that he agrees that all those people are very vulnerable.

John Pugh: I do not dispute that, but one can always have exceptions to legislation. We have always set a limit for exceptions, and that is not an argument against a general lowering of the point of termination.
	Finally, I was genuinely shocked by a disgraceful argument in the briefing note circulated by the British Pregnancy Advisory Society. As an argument for no reduction in the time, the letter sent to Members stated that
	"the special care baby units would be over stretched trying to care for the premature babies to the detriment of care for those born a couple of weeks later".
	If we set aside the obvious fact that non-aborted foetuses do not end up on life support machines, it is unacceptable to make our decisions on life and death depending on current funding arrangements in the NHS. That illustrates what I said earlier. To some extent, the special pleading is characteristic of a closed mind. If minds are closed, we will have the usual tribal stand-off. If they are not, we may yet have some useful legislation.

Judy Mallaber: Like others, I regret that this debate has been tagged on to the important and complex debates on updating the regulatory framework for scientific research. In those debates over the past two days, I have sought to follow the science, and I wish to do so tonight, too. As we have heard and would expect, however, the issues have a highly emotional impact and reflect different ethical and religious views.
	Many of those who have tabled amendments to cut the time limit hold strong views that the foetus is a person and any abortion is wrong. However, even within the Catholic Church, there are different opinions, as has been mentioned. The theological debate can be traced back over the centuries to St. Thomas Aquinas, and Catholics for Choice have sent hon. Members the results of the latest poll of UK faith groups, showing that the majority of UK Catholics and Protestants support a woman's right to have an abortion when she has an unwanted pregnancy. As Catholics for Choice has said, Church teaching is neither definitive nor final on this subject.
	The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) pointed out that this is not just about religion. Many hon. Members have strongly held views based on a range of arguments for cutting the limit. All too often, however, the woman is left out of this discussion, and she becomes invisible. Women have different moral views on whether abortion is acceptable and in which circumstances. I respect those views, and I also know that I am highly unlikely to change the views of those who do not agree with me, so I have to respect those views.

Iris Robinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Judy Mallaber: If I may finish this part of my argument, I shall allow the hon. Lady to intervene later.
	We know that women do not have abortions lightly. It is always a difficult decision. I have one set of views that leads me to think that we should retain the current 24-week limit, but I would never dream of saying to another woman that she should have an abortion, if she felt that that was wrong. I respect her moral views, and all I ask is that the same respect be shown to those who take a different view. Parliamentarians should not say to a woman who does not think that abortion is wrong that their views should prevail over hers. We will not convince each other, and if moral views are so divided, we should not seek to impose our views on each other. We also take different views on several of the practical issues, and we will not convince each other. Neither side should seek to impose its moral and practical views on those who take a different view faced with a decision that will affect their personal circumstances.

William Cash: Will the hon. Lady explain why more than half the doctors in the NHS refuse to carry out late abortions and 67 per cent. of abortions are carried out in private clinics, albeit under NHS contracts? Is it because those doctors find it repugnant?

Judy Mallaber: I am afraid that that is not relevant to my argument, which is that different views can be put forward. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should impose his views on a woman who has a different set of views. That is the main point of my argument.

Iris Robinson: rose—

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Judy Mallaber: May I finish my arguments? Otherwise, others will not get the chance to contribute to the debate.
	Earlier today, I took part in a debate for Central TV with one of the hon. Members who has put their name to the amendment on the 16-week limit. Such reductions would lead not to an end to abortions, but to a return to backstreet abortions.  [ Interruption. ] It is no good saying no. That is exactly what was said in the debate in which I took part earlier. I was told that we would not see a return to backstreet abortions. I cannot understand on what basis Members would say that. Some Members will have seen the film "Vera Drake", and although she might update her clothes from the 1950s to the 21st century, there will be an increase in the number of illegal abortions.

David Taylor: This is the second occasion during this debate when an assertion has been made that lowering the limit will necessarily drive up the number of illegal abortions. Will my hon. Friend tell the Committee whether similar suggestions were made during the 1990 debate on the reduction of the limit from 28 weeks to 24 weeks? Will she also tell us whether there has been an increased number of illegal abortions? There is no evidence of the second.

Judy Mallaber: A different set of arguments can probably be made about the relationship between the 24-week period and the 28-week period, because of the kind of abortions that would have to take place at that stage and the question of whether they could be carried out on the backstreets. It was odd for the person with whom I was debating the subject of reducing the limit to 16 weeks to say that that would not lead to women trying to find a way to terminate a pregnancy that they felt unable to go through.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Judy Mallaber: I intend to proceed, rather than carry on with that discussion. I do not believe that hon. Members who hold views that are opposite to mine can find an argument that will justify the statement that there would not be an increase in the number of women seeking abortions.

Ann Widdecombe: As that argument has always been made, studies and evidence were sought. In the 10 years before the passing of the 1967 Act—these are Government figures, not mine—the number of abortions carried out in the backstreets that resulted in injury or admission to hospital declined at the same rate as it did in the 10 years following the Act. In other words, the 1967 Act was not a panacea that cured backstreet abortions, which were already declining because of greater education and health advice.

Judy Mallaber: I do not know the exact figures, but I have no problems with that argument. Of course, many of us—not everybody, as some of those who oppose abortion on religious grounds also oppose the use of contraception—would seek to improve sex education, relationships education and contraception. There is no debate about that. If that led to a fall in backstreet abortions, it would be a good thing. That is the path that we all want to go down. We do not want women to feel that they need to have abortions. It is impossible for those people who are proposing the 16-week, 12-week and 20-week limits to deny that that would lead women who are feeling desperate to seek an abortion that would inevitably damage their health and lead to some of the misery that we have seen in the past.
	I am also concerned by the attempts to reduce the time limit as part of a demonstration of how to deal with the mythical broken society. I believe that putting women through the misery of having to look for backstreet abortions, having to seek illegal abortions or being forced to carry on through pregnancy and birth would increase the broken society, if that is really what we are talking about.

Nick Palmer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Judy Mallaber: I want to make progress, because I am conscious that a number of hon. Members want to speak, including my hon. Friend, and that I would be depriving them of time. He might get in, if he does not intervene now.
	As has been noted, some hon. Members are talking not only about the 16-week limit that I discussed earlier but about what is said to be a more modest reduction to 20 or 22 weeks. There has been a lot of debate, which I will not repeat, about how all the medical and scientific organisations concerned with the issue and the Science and Technology Committee accept that there has not been a substantial change in the viability limit.
	Earlier today, I listened to the initial results from the second EPICure study—we have already had the Trent study and the first EPICure study—and it is probable that we have reached the limit of possible technical advance. That limit is due to how the foetus develops, and the lack of brain and lung capacity in the period just before 24 weeks.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister spoke earlier about what happened in 1990, when we moved from 28 to 24 weeks. That change was seen as an attempt to keep the time limit for abortions consistent with what was then regarded as the scientific viability level. That is where the science leads us at present. Of course, I do not deny that it is possible to break that link, even though to do so would go against what all the medical and scientific organisations—doctors and others—are urging. However, a reduction to 20 or 22 weeks would not reduce the number of abortions. Those who want to use a reduction in the limit to that end will not achieve a substantial cut in the number of abortions, but if they get their way, they will bring misery to a small number of women who, as has been noted, are often among the most vulnerable.
	A point that has not been made so far in the debate is that, perversely, a reduction in the time limit could lead to an increase in abortions. The problem of foetal abnormalities needs to be considered and, no matter what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) may claim, my understanding of what the scientists say is that it will not be possible to get tests for all foetal abnormalities at an earlier stage. I am not a scientist, but that is what I understand.
	As a result, women who do not learn about abnormalities in the foetus until a late stage and only realise then that they may need an abortion—or who may have presented late, or who did not know that they were pregnant, and so on—may be panicked into getting an abortion when, if they had had a few more weeks to consider, they might have taken the pregnancy to term. If the limit is reduced to a point that is too early—that is, to only just after the time when the possibility of an abortion has been discussed—the perverse effect may be that women end up having more abortions, because it is something that needs time for consideration.
	I was at a briefing with the British Medical Association earlier today. We heard from the charity Antenatal Results and Choices, which helps support women whose foetuses have abnormalities. As has been discussed already, current legislation means that it should still be possible for such women to have an abortion at any time, regardless of the limit. The charity said that the 24-week limit is the line in the sand for many doctors, and I do not dispute their right to take that view, but women who are not diagnosed until late may not get the further tests that a final diagnosis requires. As a result, because they fear that they might lose the chance, they may be panicked into having an abortion that they might not otherwise have.
	There has been some discussion about the sort of women who end up having late abortions. Here is one example:
	"I was 19, my father had died and I was looking after my 8 siblings with my mother who could barely afford to keep us. I couldn't face telling my mum about my pregnancy—things were so difficult. If I couldn't have an abortion I'd have killed myself. Now I've been able to go to college, learn to read and write, play a full role in society and bring up a family of my own."
	Another women says:
	"I had been taking the pill. When I had a missed period, I went straight to my doctor for a pregnancy test. It came back negative. I was still missing periods. I returned to my doctor who said I had nothing to worry about. A short while later I met someone who had had a child after finding out too late that she was pregnant to have an abortion. I did another test, which came back positive. It took a further two and half weeks before I could have an abortion. It was the right thing for me—I have never regretted it."
	Those are two examples of late abortions that would be ruled out by those people who feel, "Yes, going to 16 weeks or 12 weeks is too far for me, but a moderate reduction would not have a terrible effect." It would; it would cause misery for a small number of women.

Sandra Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that the use of the term "abortion for social reasons" can be very unhelpful, in suggesting that women have late abortions for reasons of pure convenience, whereas we know that there are tragic causes that relate to domestic violence and the examples that she has given, which are nothing at all to do with mere inconvenience?

Judy Mallaber: I agree with that. At the BMA meeting, Dr. Chisholm talked about his first week as a GP, when he went to a farming family who only realised that their daughter was pregnant at the point at which she went into labour. That shows how there can be complete denial and many situations in which people are not aware that they are pregnant or in which they are in such shock that they go into denial and end up seeking abortions late. We must think of those circumstances.
	At the BMA meeting earlier today, Dr. Kate Peterson—a GP—made the point that, when talking to someone who is seeking a late abortion or is not sure what to do, there are many complex circumstances that need to be talked through. She appealed to us not to take away the ability to have that serious discussion and talk through the possibilities with the woman concerned, and she said that that would be taken away if the woman was forced into a speedy decision by a reduction in the time limit.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Lady is making a powerful social case—I do not apologise for using that term—against reducing the limit, but does she accept that even those of us who might not have had any problem yesterday in voting to defend stem cell research, because we do not regard a small collection of cells as a person, nevertheless have a moral question to answer about when personhood emerges and when the legitimate rights of the woman that she has described must be nevertheless balanced with the rights of a second moral presence? We must wrestle today with that question, which she is not really addressing.

Judy Mallaber: That brings me back to my first argument. I will not convince the hon. Gentleman; he will not convince me.  [ Interruption. ] Women consider those two different sets of arguments as well. It is wrong to impose a different set of moral views on a woman who does not take the moral view that abortion is wrong or that it is wrong in those circumstances. We will not convince each other, but I would not dream of telling a woman who was strongly opposed that she should have an abortion, and the same respect should be held the other way around.

Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Judy Mallaber: No, I will not give way, because we have very little time left and a number of hon. Members still wish to speak, including those who take a different view from mine, and I respect their right to express their views.  [ Interruption. ] If I let in an hon. Member because she is regarded as supporting my views, I would be criticised for not letting in others who take a different view. So I shall come to a conclusion.
	I dread the idea that we might go backwards, and I dread the idea that we might force women against their moral views and against what they feel is right for them into a position where they are forced to go through pregnancy and to bear a child in a situation in which they might feel desperate. Of course we all want to cut the number of abortions, and we want to do so through better advice, better contraception and all the things that we can do to prevent abortions, but there will be circumstances in which women feel the need to go through that, and I appeal to the Committee not to make it difficult for them and not to put them into the terrible position of having to make that choice and of having to go through unwanted pregnancy, birth and the terrible decision of whether or not to keep the child that they have borne unwillingly.

Nadine Dorries: There are two points that I would like to clear up before I embark on my speech. The first is on the issue of disability, which has been deliberately clouded tonight. My new clause 5, which would introduce a 20-week limit under section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967, relates to social terminations. If my new clause, and the 20-week limit, were agreed to tonight, and any woman found, at a 20-week or 21-week scan, that there were abnormalities, she would be able to abort up until birth under the Act. That will not change at all if my new clause is agreed to. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty), who muddied the waters slightly. My new clause refers only to social terminations in healthy circumstances.

Patrick Hall: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mark Pritchard: She's only just started—give her a chance!

Patrick Hall: So what?

Nadine Dorries: Well, I definitely will not give way now. Let me give some further figures on the disability issue. In 2006, some 2,860 terminations took place between 20 and 24 weeks. One in five of them—567—took place because of a disability. That situation would not be affected at all by my new clause; those mothers would still be able to abort.
	I should like to make my personal position clear, because it has been misrepresented in the past few days. I am pro-choice. I support a woman's right to abortion—to faster, safer and quicker abortion than is available at the moment, particularly in the first trimester. That is my position.

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for saying that she supports abortion. She will agree that it is a good point that 89 per cent. of abortions are conducted in the first 13 weeks, so her case about getting more done does not really stand up.

Nadine Dorries: As I have found from my research, one of the main problems is that many young women who present at a hospital or at a doctor's are made to wait two to four weeks before a termination. I want to make my position clear: I am not against abortion per se. Actually, I would go further: I would like the morning-after pill to be available from every school nurse and in every supermarket pharmacy—and it should be free for young girls, and not £25 at the chemist's, as it is at the moment.  [Interruption.] I can imagine the discussions that are taking place.
	Now may I get to the substantive part of my speech? I first became concerned about and interested in the issue of abortion when I worked as a nurse. I worked for nine months on a gynaecology ward, and assisted in many terminations and late terminations. I also went to witness a late surgical abortion six weeks ago. I became interested in abortion when it became apparent to me, as a nurse, that far more botched late abortions were taking place than should. The first one that I witnessed was a prostaglandin termination. A little boy was aborted into a cardboard bedpan, which was thrust into my arms. When I looked into the cardboard bedpan, the little boy was gasping for breath through the mucus and amniotic fluid. I stood by the sluice with him in my arms, in the bedpan, for seven minutes while he gasped for breath. A botched abortion became a live birth, and then, seven minutes later, a death. I knew when I stood with that little boy in my arms that one day I would have the opportunity to defend babies such as him. I thought that we committed murder that day. I cannot think of another word for a nurse or doctor present at the birth not attempting to resuscitate a baby who was an abortion but became a live birth.
	The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists then dealt with the issue, because a number of botched abortions were happening across the country. The RCOG produced guidelines setting out a new way to abort babies from 19 weeks onwards. A number of people have talked about the method. I witnessed a late surgical abortion six weeks ago—

Dawn Primarolo: Where?

Nadine Dorries: I am not going to reveal that to the Minister. I think that people need to know this: the baby was given a lethal injection of potassium through the mother's abdominal wall, into the baby's heart. The process was supervised by an ultrasound scanner, so that the doctor could see exactly where the needle was going—into the foetal heart. The baby died and 24 hours later went through the process of surgical dismemberment and removal. It was just as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) described. It is the most dramatic experience to watch. The baby was dismembered and put in a plastic bucket.
	I hope such an operation is filmed one day and shown on television. The facts have been kept from the general public for too long. Since I had an article published in a newspaper recently, more than 1,000 people have e-mailed and written to me. They had no idea that that was the procedure that took place.
	If babies do not live below 24 weeks, one must ask why the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists provides guidelines to guarantee that they do not. Do they live or not? If they do not, why do we go through that horrific process?

Evan Harris: Does the hon. Lady want the answer?

Nadine Dorries: Professor Anand—[Hon. Members: "No. Press on."]—Professor Anand, who is the world— [Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. These are extremely emotive issues, but I hope the House can continue in the vein that has characterised most of the debate, and listen to the views of each hon. Member.

Nadine Dorries: I shall give way once to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris).

Evan Harris: What the hon. Lady described on her blog as an injection of vitamin K, rather than potassium, which was curious, is exactly the way of ensuring that the baby comes out normally, through expulsion rather than dilatation and curettage, as she describes. However, the procedure that she has just described is also the way that intrauterine deaths, which tragically occur and which are not abortions, are dealt with. So she has not revealed a sudden discovery. It was precisely to avoid the distressing sight, for some people, of abortions being born alive, which are bound to die because they are not viable, that that procedure was carried out. There is universal medical consensus on it.

Nadine Dorries: First, I am very aware of the difference between potassium chloride and vitamin K, and I have never written the words "vitamin K" on my blog. I defy anyone to go, right now, and find that. It does not exist.
	Secondly, there is a big difference between a wanted birth which dies in utero and an aborted birth. The RCOG produced the guidelines for abortion. There has been much discussion this evening about whether women have rights. Of course they do. However, in a pregnancy there comes a point when a baby may have a chance of viability. I shall give some evidential figures on viability.
	We have heard much of the EPICure 2 study and the Trent study. Professor Field, who is the author of the Trent study, said on the "Today" programme this morning that he is not sure that we should be using viability as a marker, and neither am I.

Andrew Slaughter: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hon. Members: No. Sit down.

Nadine Dorries: The analysis of viability of premature births happens for a reason. Premature births may occur because those babies are poorly, or the uterine environment is unwelcoming, but that is very different from aborted babies, the majority of whom would be healthy, as are normal births. Unless we ask 1,000 women to abort at 23 weeks of pregnancy so that we can see what happens to healthy babies when they are aborted, we cannot use the argument of viability. But the limit was set at 24 weeks.
	Between 1980 and 1985 at University College hospital, no babies survived at 22 or 23 weeks. Between 1996 and 2000, 50 per cent. of babies born at 22 and 23 weeks survived. BLISS, the neonatal children's charity, says that more information is needed about the neonatal services that are provided in this country and at what gestation babies do well. If there were dedicated transport so that babies born early could get to a neonatal unit quickly and receive treatment, there would be a rise in the figures, as there has been in Sweden and in hospitals with good neonatal units on site.
	If more neonatal units did not close their doors 52 times a year, as every one in this country did last year, and if a baby could be transferred to a neonatal unit within minutes—instead of hours—of birth, we would see a big difference. We see a difference in hospitals with good specialist teams in their neonatal units. The survival figures are very different. Granted, in the EPICure 2 and Trent studies the figures were averaged out, so that every birth was brought into the figures. However, for hospitals with good neonatal units attached to them, such as University College hospital, the figures are very different.
	As I said, I believe that the woman has rights, but the baby has them also. I think that the baby's rights kick in if it would have the chance of life if it were born and if it feels pain as part of the abortion procedure. At that point, the baby's rights have parity with those of the mother.
	We have quoted Vincent Argent a few times this evening. He was the previous medical director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and wrote an incredibly good article this week. He talked about when women go to him for a late termination. He described how women who have been on IVF programmes ask him for a termination because they are expecting twins and would like one to be aborted. Some women go to him wanting a late termination with no good reason—they just demand a termination.
	I was on "The Daily Politics" with the Minister at lunchtime today; it featured an example of someone who had had a late termination at 22 weeks because she felt that it was not the right time in her life. There comes a point when it has to be said that the baby also has a right to life.
	I would like to talk about the various institutions because I know that many Members think that they have held on to what the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and faculties of neonatal medicine have said. First, I would like to talk about the Royal College of Nursing, of which I used to be a member. The RCN has taken the position of supporting the 24-week limit, but has not consulted its members. Two weeks ago I addressed a meeting of nurses, two thirds of whom were members of other health workers' unions; they were not even members of the RCN. They were angry that the college was purporting to speak on their behalf, given that they were not even members of it. The nurses who were RCN members were very angry that it was taking a position without even having consulted them to find out their opinion. Given today's technology, there is no excuse for doing that; members could be e-mailed and canvassed for their opinions very easily.
	The British Medical Association is hugely influenced by its ethics committee, on which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon sits. The association is definitely not representative of doctors' grass-roots opinion, which has been demonstrated today in a poll by Doctors.net.uk. Some 31 per cent. of the doctors polled want a 24-week limit, 15 per cent. want a 22-week limit and 54 per cent. want a 20-week limit.

Dawn Primarolo: rose—

Nadine Dorries: Overall, 69 per cent. of those doctors want the limit to be reduced.

Dawn Primarolo: rose—

Nadine Dorries: Marie Stopes— [Interruption.]

Alan Haselhurst: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the Committee must come to order. It is entirely up to the hon. Member who has the floor whether he or she gives way. The fact is that we should allow whoever is on their feet to be heard.

Nadine Dorries: In October 2007, Marie Stopes, one of the charities that carries out late abortions, did a poll of GPs.

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She referred to a survey of 210 doctors by a subscription site that has more than 9,000 members—I cannot remember the exact figure, but that might have been it. There are 40,000-odd GPs in the health service, so her percentage is not very accurate.

Nadine Dorries: That is fine—let us talk about the Marie Stopes survey of October last year. Marie Stopes is a charity that carries out a high percentage of late terminations. Its survey of GPs—I would imagine of all GPs—shows that two thirds of GPs want a reduction from 24 weeks.
	During the previous debate, someone mentioned the faculty of sexual and reproductive healthcare of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The medical director of that organisation, in a television interview last year, said that she did not perform terminations over 16 weeks because it was too much like a baby. That organisation has been cited as supporting 24 weeks. It is a fact that doctors do not like to perform late abortions. In the NHS, hardly any abortions over 16 weeks take place. We have a Government policy of 24 weeks, and an NHS that does not want to carry that policy out. We have a private abortion industry that has mushroomed around the NHS in order to carry out late terminations that doctors and nurses in the NHS do not want to do.
	We have to ask ourselves this question: if we have a policy that states that we abort to 24 weeks, should we not be carrying out those operations in the NHS? Should we be encouraging a private industry to develop around it to carry out those abortions? Is that right? Is that what we should be doing? I do not think that any doctors train as doctors to end life. Most doctors and nurses train to save life and that is why, particularly now that doctors sub-specialise—doctors do not train in the way that they used to; they do not spend a long time in obs and gyny any more, but specialise very early—we are running out of doctors to perform late terminations in this country.
	I have covered the issues that I want to deal with. I would like to finish on public opinion and public mood. Over the past six months or so, we have seen a huge swing in public opinion on this issue. The YouGov poll, the ComRes poll and others have shown, because the public are—

Ian Gibson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Nadine Dorries: I will.

Ian Gibson: Where does the hon. Lady get the evidence that we are running out of doctors?

Nadine Dorries: We are running out of doctors who want to perform late terminations: the majority of doctors who work in the BPAS and Marie Stopes clinics are coming in from abroad on six-month contracts. There are very few UK graduates performing late terminations in BPAS or Marie Stopes clinics — [ Interruption. ] There are only two, apparently.
	Public opinion has changed, which has a huge amount to do with the work of Professor Stuart Campbell in 3D imagery. Pregnant women have always wished that they had a window on their stomachs so that they could see what their baby looked like and what their baby was doing. Professor Campbell has provided that window. We can now see what a baby looks like at various stages of pregnancy. We can see it walk in the womb, we can see it suck its thumb, and we can see exactly what our baby looks like.
	The public have been informed by the images of how a foetus develops, the knowledge that foetuses feel pain in the uterus earlier, the knowledge of what happens in a late termination, the fact that doctors do not want to perform abortions and the fact that they are not performed in the NHS but in private clinics, and they have taken a view. Their view is that they do not want any further late terminations at 24 weeks. The public do not say that they want the limit to come down from 24 weeks; the public—including three quarters of women—say that they want 20 weeks. They specify what they want.
	I would like to press the new clause to a vote, but I would like to finish with the words of Professor Sunny Anand, who is the world's leading authority on foetal pain. As a result of his work, neonates who are operated on now live. The consensus of opinion before was that neonates could not feel pain before they were due to be born. They were operated on and died during the operations. As a result of his research, neonates now live.

David Burrowes: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Yesterday, the assertion was made in the discussion about saviour siblings, not least by the Minister, that she would move heaven and earth to ensure that a very sick child lived. How does my hon. Friend square that with the position today, whereby the Minister would not ensure that very sick children who are the victims of late abortion lived, by reducing the time limit?

Nadine Dorries: The Minister may have selective preferences about which lives she wants to save.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Lady has asserted many things to be facts that are not. She is entirely at liberty to make the points that she wishes to raise. However, nobody in the Chamber, least of all me, has made any assertions about people picking and choosing. Some of the things that she is saying are not borne out by the evidence.

Nadine Dorries: If the Minister feels that I have said anything tonight—cited any statistic or piece of information—that is not factual, I hope that she will challenge it.
	I should like to finish with the words of Professor Anand. He recently said to me, "Nadine, your Parliament will be voting on setting a time limit on abortion. So much has happened in science in the last 20 years that, when you cast your vote, it will be like a snapshot in time. But science and research is like an ever-rolling movie." Whereas we have experienced good statistical improvements for neonates at 24 and 25 weeks, the amendments that were passed yesterday and the resultant changes in the law mean that neonates may live very much younger, very much sooner.
	Given that we have a vote on the subject only every 20 years or so, perhaps we should represent the will of the public and reduce the limit to 20 weeks now.

Nick Palmer: I want to speak about new clause 8, which is in my name and those of other Labour and Conservative Members.
	New clause 8 is the only amendment to focus on late abortion in the case of severe disability, and I give notice that I hope to press it.
	Let me consider the other new clauses briefly. Given that there is no early term limit in cases of severe disability, I will not comment on the proposals to reduce the term limit, but I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on his persuasive and balanced views.
	Two new clauses cover information. The other is new clause 7, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who was here earlier, tabled. It may help the House if I explain the distinction between them. I think that my hon. Friend would agree that new clause 7 is intended to encourage women to think twice about abortion. New clause 8 would offer additional, strictly neutral information to help the woman at what may be the most difficult juncture in her life.

Crispin Blunt: As a parent who found himself in circumstances that could have been caught by new clause 8, I find it patronising, onerous and unnecessary. It would probably do more damage than good. What position does the hon. Gentleman think parents who could be caught by new clause 8 are in? The Minister has made it clear that guidelines already cover that, and I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clause.

Nick Palmer: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I draw his attention to the contents of the proposed information. I shall go through them in detail.
	New clause 8 would essentially require neutral scientific information and counselling on a diagnosed condition to be offered to any woman considering an abortion. In practice, the effect would be that the Department of Health would need to provide a briefing pack on the conditions that the tests can disclose—Down's syndrome, club foot, cleft palate and so on—that also covered, for example, life expectancy, quality of life, availability of treatment and support groups. In response to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that any prospective parent in doubt about whether to have an abortion would surely wish to know those basic facts. They will want to ask, "What is the life expectancy if I go ahead? What kind of quality of life will the child have? What treatment is available and what support groups are there?"

Tom Clarke: I happen to believe that my hon. Friend's new clause is one of the most important measures that we are being asked to consider this evening. Does he accept that many people in disability organisations— not all, but many—take the view that it is perfectly reasonable that a woman who has been informed that her child might have a mental or physical incapacity should, before she takes such a major decision, know what assistance, counselling, therapeutic response and much more society is prepared to offer? The woman is entitled to hear what society is prepared to offer.

Nick Palmer: I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's point. I stress that we are talking about the offer of information. Unlike some proposals that we have heard in the past, we are not saying, "We will not allow you an abortion unless you sit through this briefing that we insist on giving you." We are not saying, "You must go away and come back after a certain period." We are saying, "We have this information for you. If you would like to hear it and if you would like counselling, it is available." We would make it mandatory—not for the woman, but for the health service—that such information must be available. If the woman and her partner felt that they had enough information already, they would be free to decline the offer without any delay.

Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Palmer: I am sorry, but in view of the shortage of time, I do not want to take more than one intervention per hon. Member.
	My proposal would not impose any delay—the couple can immediately reject the offer—and would not create any hoops for people to jump through. In many of the 35,000 cases a year of diagnosed foetal abnormality, the information that I have described is already spontaneously provided by medical advisers, as we have heard, but in some cases it is not. Unless the parents press for that information—and let us face it, not every parent has the confidence in that stressful situation to press for detailed information—they are faced with an appalling dilemma, yet without the information that they need to resolve it.

Hugo Swire: Given that we are all keen to back everything that we say this evening with evidence, can the hon. Gentleman give any examples that he has ever heard about or come across where a parent has not asked for that information at that critical point?

Nick Palmer: Unlike some hon. Members, I am not able to give chapter and verse from individual conversations, but I have certainly spoken to constituents who have had abortions who said that they did not quite know the right questions to ask in that desperate situation. They asked what the implications of the condition were, but they were not spontaneously offered a detailed briefing of the kind that I propose. The hon. Gentleman may be underestimating the stress under which people are put and overestimating their ability to vocalise and communicate all the questions that they might have. There are many people who are a little scared of the health service and of the doctors to whom they talk. People are not universally as loquacious as the hon. Gentleman or as able to question energetically every doctor whom they meet. That is the difficulty. We need to be willing to provide the information without being pressed for it.
	I must declare a personal interest. I was born with a cleft palate, and my parents were advised by the surgeon that I could still have a decent quality of life so long as I did not make the mistake of choosing a career that involved public speaking.  [Laughter.] I do not claim that all advice is good. It sometimes seems as though we as a society place too much emphasis on physical perfection. Looking around the Chamber, I see that all hon. Members present are exceptionally good-looking, but the sad truth is that none of us is perfect, however much we may look it. There are terrible foetal abnormalities that make the decision to have an abortion entirely understandable, but it is a great pity that potential parents, in a moment of acute distress, might be panicked into having an abortion when they could have had a happy child if they had been given more information.
	On most of the amendments to the Bill, hon. Members have generally separated into quite clear pro-choice and pro-life camps. My new clause has attracted the support of pro-life groups because they believe that if more information about the support that is available were provided, it is likely that fewer parents would opt for abortion. There is, however, nothing anti-choice about it. I tabled it as someone who has no religious belief, much as I would like to, and who is not part of any organised group on the subject. It is simply about ensuring that there is informed choice. I hope that many colleagues who have been agonising over these issues will find it a helpful way forward.

Richard Ottaway: I rise to speak to new clause 9, which seeks to lower to 22 weeks the threshold for terminations. Like my hon. Friend—she is my friend—the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), I agree with the principle of abortion. I believe that every child should be a wanted child, and I suspect that abortion is a terrifying experience involving trauma and stress for the woman involved. I also believe that even if one is against the principle of abortion, it should be the woman's right to choose.
	I invite the Committee to imagine a frightened young woman living in a bedsit somewhere on a housing estate in England who is pregnant, has no friends and has hostile parents. I believe that it is not for MPs to decide that she should be condemned to live with the consequences of that pregnancy for the rest of her life, or, indeed, that the child should be condemned to be an unwanted child. To me, it is for the woman to decide whether or not to have a termination. The issue is the circumstances in which abortion takes place.
	I am the first to admit that the current law is far from perfect, but this is not a perfect world. With one exception, on balance, I do not favour either strengthening or liberalising the current law. That exception is the time limit for termination. I appreciate the briefings that have been given by the BMA, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Nursing, which conclude that there is no evidence of a significant improvement in the survival of pre-term infants at below 24 weeks' gestation in the past 18 years. I have no grounds on which to dispute that, and I accept their evidence, but in my judgment that is not the point. The question is whether 24 weeks is the right threshold.
	In 1990, the House reduced the threshold from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. If the report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is right and the situation is the same now as it was then, I am not sure that I would have supported 24 weeks then.
	In reaching the judgment, there are conflicting pressures. I believe that a woman should be given as much time as possible to deal with the huge economic and health pressures to decide whether she wants the child. However, I am concerned that abortions are being carried out after the date of viability.

Desmond Turner: Under the Act, the concept of 24 weeks is different from that of 24 medical weeks, as recorded in medical records and referred to in the various studies, including the EPICure study. The 24 weeks referred to in the medical studies are, in legal terms, 25 weeks, as the period can be anything from 24 weeks and 0 days to 24 weeks and six days. However, "24 weeks" in the Act refers to anything between 23 and 24 weeks. That is critical, because this is a critical time of development—

The Chairman: Order. I think that the Committee has probably got the point.

Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but it bears no resemblance to anything that I was talking about.

Emily Thornberry: rose—

Richard Ottaway: I am sorry, I will not give way.
	I want to concentrate on the definition of viability, which was well put by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) as: can the child survive at birth? The evidence from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists states that, at 23 weeks, the survival rate is about 7 or 8 per cent., with improved survival prospects thereafter. The evidence also states that there is no survival at 22 weeks, and that there has been no change in that regard. To me, that 7 or 8 per cent. is statistically significant. There is a choice between survival at 23 weeks and no survival at 22 weeks. It is my judgment that this is where the science comes in, and that viability lies somewhere between 22 and 23 weeks—hence my amendment proposing a limit of 22 weeks. That would give a woman as much time as possible to make her decision and for any genetic conditions to become apparent. It is worth noting that an overwhelming number of European countries have a limit of 12 weeks, so this proposal can hardly be described as liberal.

Emily Thornberry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Ottaway: I am not giving way again.
	If anybody wants a cure for the quiet life, I suggest that they table an amendment on abortion. On the one hand, I have been criticised by the United Kingdom Family Planning Association, which has asked me to resign as a patron. On the other, I have been criticised behind my back for tabling what has been described as a wrecking amendment. I do not think that this is a wrecking amendment. I have not sought to lobby anyone, and I have not given any interviews. I simply believe that it would make the legislation workable.
	I have been a patron of the Family Planning Association for about a decade. I support its aims and objectives, which include preventing women from getting pregnant in the first place, and I regret its insistence on collective responsibility for every nuance of its policy. Given the criticism that I have received from both ends of the spectrum, however, I suspect that I have got this right. I urge colleagues to support new clause 9 and a term limit of 22 weeks.

Julie Morgan: I speak in support of the present abortion time limit and to oppose all the amendments to reduce it. It is now 40 years since the Abortion Act came into effect in April 1968, and we have had 40 years in which women have rightly been able to decide what is right for them, in consultation with doctors, and in which abortion has been legal and safe. I am pleased that we have been able to celebrate those 40 years on a cross-party basis, and that Sir David Steel, who introduced the original Bill, joined in those celebrations. He has made clear his support for retaining the 24-week limit.
	Despite some of the comments that have been made tonight and in the newspapers, which seemed to imply that women had abortions on a whim, the decision to have an abortion is not one that is taken lightly or is easy to follow through. It is not easy to get an abortion: women in the UK do not get abortions on request, and the procedure has to be agreed by two doctors. Many people, including me, believe that abortion should be more accessible. There are no circumstances in which a woman wants to end up having to have an abortion, particularly if she is in an advanced state of pregnancy.
	It is very important to re-emphasise the number of abortions that take place late, as it is a minute number. About 89 per cent. take place in the first 13 weeks, as has already been said, and only a tiny number—1.45 per cent.—take place after 20 weeks. Clearly, it is extraordinary for late abortions to occur and it usually happens because of extraordinary sets of circumstances. For example, many women having late abortions have often not realised that they are pregnant or they may have gone into denial. It is quite common for women to deny that they are pregnant, ending up wanting a late abortion. Changes in personal circumstances may be relevant. Many Members have mentioned domestic abuse and changes in family circumstances.

Mark Francois: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julie Morgan: Briefly, once.

Mark Francois: Very briefly, strong views have been expressed on both sides of the House tonight, but none of the absolutist positions appears on the Order Paper. What we are being asked to do by definition is to take a decision at the margins. As the nub of the argument appears to be viability and, as we have already heard from a number of examples this evening, it is moving down to 23 or even 22 weeks, does it not make sense to move that margin to take account of that development? Should we not vote for 23 or even for 20 weeks?

Julie Morgan: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. A number of organisations have said very clearly that viability under 24 weeks is not improving. I am coming on to that point in a few moments. My argument now is that many of the different reasons why women present for late abortions are good and valid ones. Those reasons apply specifically to particular women. The decision to go ahead with an abortion should be made by that woman personally in tandem with her doctor on the basis of those particular issues.
	I attended the British Medical Association meeting this morning and talked to gynaecologists and others who are practising in the field. They told me that even a reduction of two weeks would have a significant effect on a very small number of vulnerable women. As has already been said, they need time to talk to those women about the decision they have to make. It is so important not to reduce the opportunity for those vulnerable women to discuss those issues.
	There is a clear consensus in the medical community on survival rates. Many Members have mentioned that consensus, but some have failed to acknowledge it as they should.  [Interruption.] Certainly, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and other organisations have come out with a clear statement that there has been no improvement in viability under 24 weeks.

John Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julie Morgan: No, I am not giving way now.
	The medical evidence is absolutely clear, but there is another important issue, which is a moral one. Is it right— [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. There is far too much conversation going on in the Committee. The hon. Lady has been waiting a long time to make her contribution and she should be heard.

Julie Morgan: Thank you, Sir Alan.
	The moral issue is whether it is right to force a woman to carry on with a pregnancy if she feels that she cannot do so, perhaps because she feels it may threaten her family set-up or her other children. If she really feels unable to carry on, should she be forced into motherhood? Is that a good idea either for the mother or the child? Surely it is better to go with the judgment of the mother and the doctor, discussing the matter together in the light of her particular circumstances. It is all about women's autonomy and control over their own bodies rather than being forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy or to seek an unsafe abortion, which could be the consequence. The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty): "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one." I think that that sums up very well what the debate is about. It is about respecting another person's right to choose, even if it is not a choice that one would make oneself.
	I think we all know that many—not all—of those who seek to reduce the upper time limit are really against a woman's right to choose at all, and are entering through the back door to begin the erosion of women's control over their own bodies and their own lives. I believe that the campaign to cut the limit to 20, 22 or 16 weeks is not an anti-24-week campaign but, in reality, an anti-abortion campaign, and I think we have accepted that in tonight's debate. I think we have accepted that any attempt to reduce the abortion limit from 24 weeks even to 22 weeks is an attack on abortion generally.
	I hope that members of all parties, when they vote tonight, will remember that our rights over our bodies were hard won, and were supported at the time by members of all parties. I do not think we want to see tonight an erosion of those rights that we won. I think that we need to remain steadfast, accept the clear medical evidence and give these anti-abortion proposals—because they are all anti-abortion—a resounding no.

Ann Widdecombe: We have in this country at present a situation in which it is possible for this to happen to two children of exactly the same age and gestation: one is in a cot with all the resources of medical science being poured in to save it, while the other is quite deliberately being taken from the womb and destroyed. That is moral anarchy. That is a totally unjustifiable state of affairs. What is the difference between those two children? One thing only: the will of another human being. They are exactly the same age and of exactly the same gestation, but under the current law they are treated entirely differently.
	A considerable smokescreen has been raised tonight about the woman's right to choose. The law already limits that right. After 24 weeks, no matter how dire the woman's situation and no matter how much she may not want to continue the pregnancy, the law says that at that point her right to have her wishes prevail is limited, indeed non-existent. So we already limit the right. The question is whether we should continue to limit the right at 24 weeks, or whether we should do so at an earlier point. There is no reason whatever why we should be driven only by the issue of viability. That is another smokescreen, because there is also the issue of the humanity of the child.

John Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Ann Widdecombe: Very briefly.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. She is concerned about humanity; so are other right hon. and hon. Members. Does she not accept that if there is a two-week reduction, very, very frightened and vulnerable women will unquestionably suffer? We should stick with the status quo.

Ann Widdecombe: I cannot believe the way in which my hon. Friend has simply dismissed the humanity of the child. Because of the 24-week limit, that situation already arises. What limits the period to 24 weeks? The humanity of the child; the ability to feel pain, on which there is now a vast body of scientific evidence; the ability to feel distress. I ask again, why do we need to give a lethal injection to a child if it is not living in the womb? It may not be living outside the womb, but it is living in the womb. Those who believe in preserving life acknowledge the life of what is living, even though we cannot see it. If we could see the children that are being taken for abortion, there would be a national outcry.
	That is why Professor Campbell's pictures have had such an impact. Suddenly we can see what we are so wantonly—and I would say wickedly—destroying. Therefore, I commend any reduction, but especially that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I sincerely hope that tonight we will strike a blow for the weakest in our midst—those who have no other voice but ours.

Edward Leigh: I thank all Members who have taken part. This has been a fine, serious and good-natured debate in which Members have spoken with passion and conscience for what they believe in. The Committee must now divide. We all accept, of course, that women have rights. I hope, also, that we will ponder before we vote the fact that unborn children have rights, too.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 71, Noes 393.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the  n ew Clauses , The Chairman put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [12 May].

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 3)

'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "sixteenth week".'.— [Mark Pritchard.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question  put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 84, Noes 387.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No.5)

'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "twentieth week".'.— [Mrs. Dorries.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question  put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 332.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Foetal physical or mental abnormalities: Information and counselling

'After section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (Medical termination of pregnancy) insert—
	"1A (1) If tests of a foetus reveal that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped, a registered medical practitioner or a suitably qualified health professional expeditiously shall provide the pregnant woman with—
	(a) current, scientific information in a written form concerning:
	(i) the life expectancy of;
	(ii) the expected intellectual and functional development of; and
	(iii) the treatment options for;
	a foetus diagnosed with, or a child born with, the physical or mental abnormalities identified as a risk by those tests,
	(b) contact details for, where available, supportive service providers, including telephone help lines specific to the physical or mental abnormalities identified as a risk by those tests, and
	(c) the offer of a suitable opportunity to receive relevant counselling and such other information as they deem proper.
	(2) If, subsequent to the receipt of test results referred to under subsection (1), the pregnant woman notifies a registered medical practitioner that she is considering terminating the pregnancy, either wholly or partly as a result of those test results, then the termination must not take place until the information and offer set out in subsections (1)(a) to (c) have been provided.'. — [Dr. Palmer.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 173, Noes 309.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Amendment of the law relating to abortion (No. 7)

'In section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), for "twenty-fourth week" substitute "twenty-second week".'.— [Richard Ottaway.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 233, Noes 304.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Bill (Clauses 4, 11, 14 and 23 and Schedule 2) reported, with  amendments; to lie upon the Table.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Social Security Benefits

Ordered,
	That the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2008 (S.I., 2008, No. 667), dated 9th March, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.— [Tony Cunningham.]

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered, ,
	That—
	(1) the matter of MASRAM (multi-agency sex offender risk assessment and management arrangements) and the management of the risk posed by sex offenders living in the community in Northern Ireland be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 17th June at half-past four o'clock and
	(3) at that sitting—
	(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
	(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the matter referred to the Committee; and
	(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).— [Tony Cunningham.]

PETITIONS

Post Office Closures (Cumbria)

David Maclean: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the supporters of Hayton post office in Penrith and The Border constituency. It has been signed by almost 500 people in the small village of Hayton—users of the post office and local villagers. The petitioners declare:
	That Post Offices are a vital part of the social fabric of the local community and must be preserved; they note that the Government is continually reducing Post Office business which should and could continue to be done by Post Offices thus keeping them viable. The Petitioners believe that mobile Post Offices cannot be a substitute for the village shop or the Post Office, which is often the hub of social and community life and the centre of informal networking which binds a village together.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to instruct Post Office Ltd to retain Hayton Post Office in Penrith and The Border constituency.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000197]

Time Limit for Abortion

Edward Leigh: To the House of Commons: this petition is supported by some 40,000 people.
	The Petition of those concerned about the potential changes to the time limit for abortion declares that 200,000 abortions a year in Britain is far too many.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons support amendments to the Abortion Act which will reduce substantially the 24-week upper time limit, end discriminatory abortion of the disabled up until birth, and provide balanced evidence-based information, independently of the abortion service, that gives women a properly informed choice, along with the offer of counselling; further requests that the House of Commons reject proposed amendments seeking to liberalise the abortion law further, such as ending the requirement for two doctors' signatures, allowing nurse-led medical abortion in GP surgeries with completion at home, barring pro-life doctors from seeing women with unplanned pregnancies, and extending the Abortion Act to Northern Ireland.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000198]

MILITARY RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Tony Cunningham.]

Willie Rennie: I suppose I am still the new boy in the House; last week, when Mr. Speaker offered me an Adjournment debate this evening, I readily agreed—not realising that we would be starting at 11.20 in the evening, but I am still grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue of military radioactive waste management.
	In April 2007, the  Dunfermline Press, my local newspaper reported a Ministry of Defence spokesman as saying:
	"The seven submarines stored currently at Rosyth Dockyard are very well maintained and monitored...They are in excellent condition and perfectly safe".
	Just one year later, that same newspaper's front-page headline screamed:
	"'Graveyard' fear as sub's hull is holed".
	It went on to describe the discovery of a fist-sized hole in the decommissioned nuclear submarine, HMS Revenge, one of the four SSBN—ship submersible ballistic nuclear—submarines currently stored at Rosyth dockyard in my constituency.
	With a certain amount of comedy, I would say, the MOD spokesman attempted to reassure readers that there was little to worry about, as it was microbial action and not rust that had caused the hole. Speaking as a simple Fifer, I regard holes as holes and I am not really worried about how they are caused; the point is that they are holes. I find it difficult to accept, however, that in just a year, the submarine has gone from being in "excellent condition" , well maintained and monitored to having a fist-sized hole in it. I find that rather strange and concerning.
	Rosyth dockyard has had a long association, stretching back to the '60s, with nuclear-powered submarines. In fact, Rosyth was involved at the very beginning of nuclear submarines, with HMS Dreadnought, Britain's first nuclear sub, which set sail from Rosyth for Singapore on a 30,000 mile sustained high-speed run a week before I was born in 1967. She had a major refit in the yard three years later. By 1984, the yard had developed an expertise in nuclear sub refits and was chosen as the sole location for refitting the fleet; two years later, extensive rebuilding commenced to facilitate its new role.
	In 1993, however, that decision was cruelly reversed. We all know about the decision taken when Devonport was awarded the refit and refuelling arrangements for the Trident submarine fleet and other submarines. That was an attempt by the Conservative Government—I notice that no Conservative Members are present—to save Conservative seats in the south-west. I am glad to say that they failed miserably, as the Conservatives were routed in the region by both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party.
	Rosyth dockyard continues to have a role as the resting place for seven nuclear submarines: the four Polaris SSBNs, HMS Resolution, HMS Repulse, HMS Renown and HMS Revenge, and three SSNs, or ship submersible nuclear submarines, HMS Churchill, HMS Swiftsure and the original HMS Dreadnought. In fact, HMS Dreadnought has been resting in the non-tidal basin of Rosyth for 25 years. Its fuel rods have been removed and it is waiting for its final resting place. The total weight of all the decommissioned submarines in Rosyth is almost 6,000 tonnes. These days, the basin is quite a tranquil and peaceful place, just along from the Qinetiq base in the Rosyth dockyard, and it is now also home to a pair of nesting cormorants.
	From the very beginning, Rosyth dockyard has had a close association with the nuclear submarine fleet, but I have to say that it is an association that, along with the disposal of the submarines themselves, we wish would come to an end.
	Dumping had been common practice in the 1950s and 1960s, and in the 1970s the Ministry of Defence planned to do the same with nuclear submarines after they were defuelled. Opposition to that method grew in the 1970s after worries were expressed about environmental risks, but only after an intervention by the National Union of Seamen in 1982 did the MOD have to stop dumping intermediate-level waste at sea. Opposition was also growing in the United States, which found an alternative solution for its nuclear submarines. Then, in the 1980s, the MOD agreed to store the submarines temporarily at Devonport and Rosyth.
	ISOLUS stands for "interim storage of laid-up submarines". The project defines its role thus:
	"Project ISOLUS is committed to the timely development and implementation of a solution for the dismantling of the UK's defuelled nuclear powered submarines which inspires public confidence, is safe, environmentally responsible, secure and cost-effective."
	The current process for nuclear submarines is described as defuel, de-equip, and lay-up preparation, or DDLP. Defuelling involves the most radioactive material on board the submarines. The fuel is removed and transported by train to Sellafield in Cumbria, where it is stored. De-equipping involves removing equipment that is classified for security reasons, or which can be reused or disposed of. Lay-up preparation involves the submarine, which still contains the nuclear reactor compartment—which is similar in size to two double-decker buses—being prepared for long-storage afloat. So far all that has been done at Devonport and Rosyth, but in future defuelling will be carried out only at Devonport.
	I want to explain why further delay in finding a final solution for the disposal of military nuclear waste is not an option, and why we need to be expeditious in seeking a programme to dismantle the 11 decommissioned nuclear submarines that we have in the United Kingdom. I know that more are coming onstream in the near future. The United Kingdom currently has 27 nuclear-powered submarines, of which 14 have left naval service and 11 have been defuelled. As I have said, seven are at Rosyth. The other four are at Devonport. The problem is that there is limited capacity for the storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines in the United Kingdom.
	An MOD spokesman told the  Dunfermline Press:
	"Our strategic capacity will run out by 2020 as more nuclear submarines are being decommissioned."
	However, I understand that the position is far more urgent, and that capacity will run out by 2011, in only three years' time. It may be possible to squeeze in a few more years and squeeze out a bit more space, but that will only delay the inevitable need for a decision in the near future. It is vital that we do not delay any more, and for those capacity reasons we urgently need a solution for the decommissioned submarines.
	It is clear that the safe storage of nuclear waste is no longer a technical issue. There is no requirement for the various studies to be set deadlines that are decades into the future. As far as I know there are no technical barriers to progress, and we therefore need to make progress quickly. I see no reason why we cannot make a decision within two years, and start the process soon after that. The dismantling of the 11 submarines that are currently decommissioned at Rosyth and Devonport could begin in the very near future, which is something that my constituents would greatly welcome.
	The Americans have already dismantled 70 submarines, and have semi-buried the reactors in Hanford in Washington state. The French have also dismantled many of their submarines, using the same model as the United States and storing them at a high-tech facility in Cherbourg. Even the Russians, helped in part by the British Government, are dismantling their submarines. In fact, I received a letter from a Russian governor—which I think the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) also received—asking whether we would consider allowing the Russians to decommission our submarines. So the Russians are looking abroad for opportunities in what they regard as their expertise. It is my understanding that there is no technical reason why we have to wait any longer. I suggest that the only real reasons for further delay are purely political. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Politics has an important role to play, but it can present significant barriers. What the political process will allow us to do, however, is assess the pros and cons, so we can be open and transparent with the public about what the advantages and disadvantages would be. The second issue, therefore, is that technical barriers do not exist, so we should progress as soon as possible.
	The third reason is the reactor cool-down period. After decommissioning, it is normal to allow 18 months to enable the reactor to cool down, but the Ministry of Defence policy is to wait for a further 30 to 60 years, as it believes it cannot reduce the volume, and therefore the risk, of intermediate-level waste in reactors. This would, perhaps, have the advantage of being timely for the new intermediate-level waste storage facility that the Government want to, but have so far failed to, provide. However, because of the nature of radioactivity in the reactors, it has recently been proposed that the reduction returns will not be as lucrative as first thought. So there now seems to be little advantage in waiting for cool-down.
	So far, I have cited three reasons why we need to act speedily to find a final resolution to the matter. The final issue is cost. Nuclear safety must always come first and before cost, but cost can become a consideration when a range of safe options are being pondered. It is certainly the case that the cost of storing the nuclear submarines afloat will continue to rise the longer they are in the water. I have already informed the House that a fist-sized hole has been discovered in the ballast tank of HMS Revenge. While I am confident the good people at Babcock will have the situation under control, I am also sure that the maintenance regime will be stepped up a notch to make sure that microbial action—not rust—does not create more holes in the nuclear submarines. That improved maintenance regime will cost more money, as does the ongoing storage at the invaluable facility of the Rosyth basin, which is increasingly being considered for commercial opportunities.
	What are the options? It is clear that we must dismantle the reactor compartments in the submarines. We cannot wait any longer. We cannot continue to store them afloat indefinitely at Devonport or Rosyth. The options for dismantling are clear: Devonport and/or Rosyth. Due to expense, security and nuclear standards, it may be possible to develop only one facility for that purpose. I am not in a position to judge whether Devonport or Rosyth would be the best location for that facility, but I would like to make a few observations.
	Devonport has the refit and refuel facility for the nuclear submarine fleet. It is a first-class facility that will be utilised for the Trident submarines, the Astute subs and the existing SSNs. That will operate well into the 2050s and beyond. Whereas Rosyth has a very good radioactive storage facility, it currently stores only low-level waste resin that requires chemical decontamination before it is sent to Drigg. It is also going through the process of decommissioning its nuclear facilities. With Trident, Astute and the rest of the fleet, Devonport's future is clearly with nuclear submarines, whereas Rosyth's is in ship refit, design, engineering services and supply chain services. With today's welcome announcement on the carriers, Rosyth is looking forward to its economic future. Indeed, it has a healthy future, well beyond that of the carriers
	It seems logical, however, that together with the refuelling and refitting should go the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear subs, but that does not mean that the reactors would necessarily be stored whole or in parts at Devonport. It does not have the space and is located within a large conurbation, so it is not an appropriate long-term location. Devonport, I would therefore suggest, would not be the final storage location for the dismantled nuclear reactors, but it could be involved in the dismantling of the reactors in the interim phase.
	I know that the people of Plymouth want to dispose of their four—increasing to six, probably—decommissioned nuclear submarines as much as we in Rosyth want to dispose of ours, so we need a sensible, practical and cost-effective solution. If Devonport were chosen for such a dismantling facility, transporting the seven submarines down from Rosyth would be an issue. It would be logical to cut up the reactors and transport them by rail to Plymouth, but that would involve moving the waste under civilian regulations as opposed to military ones, the former being much more stringent and therefore expensive and restrictive. The Government should seek to change that. We should not be thwarted by artificial regulations in our attempt to seek a rational and effective system of final storage for the subs. If the regulations are not changed, the only practical method of transporting the subs to Plymouth would be by sea. My concern is that as the subs age, transporting them to Plymouth will not be possible without considerable expense, and the decision to develop a facility at both Rosyth and Devonport will therefore be made by default.
	One of the key conclusions of an investigation by Project ISOLUS states:
	"Afloat storage should be regarded only as a stop-gap measure pending the development of an alternative strategy for interim storage".
	The Ministry of Defence has come under considerable criticism from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, which described it as having "no policy" on the future of decommissioned nuclear powered submarines. Such criticisms doubtless also echo around Devonport, and Plymouth.
	We want a final solution for these nuclear submarines. Now, the Americans are also putting pressure on the MOD to come up with a solution. They are aware of the international attention on nuclear facilities and want the UK to come up with something sensible, along the lines that they themselves have adopted, as have the French and the Russians, as I have described.
	I hope that the Minister understands how important this issue is for Rosyth and for Plymouth. Both communities have lived and breathed the Royal Navy over the years. The Royal Navy has received our support, recruited our young men and women and benefited from our skilled work force. In return, our communities have accepted the consequences of the naval presence: high turnover of population, the sometimes rowdy behaviour, and the nuclear legacy. However, now is the time for the Ministry of Defence to recognise and live up to its obligations to our communities. We need an early decision on the future of our decommissioned nuclear submarines.

Derek Twigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) on securing this debate on the management of military radioactive waste and on providing me with the opportunity to speak on this issue. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) is here. She takes a great interest in these issues, is one of the hardest working constituency MPs in the House and is a great champion for Plymouth.
	I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman and begin by assuring him that the Ministry of Defence fully accepts its responsibilities regarding the need for effective management of the radioactive waste it produces. The production of such waste is an unavoidable outcome of the need to maintain vital military capability, and we are fully committed to managing it in a safe and secure manner, both now and in the future.
	I understand the concerns that many people have about radioactive waste. Some waste is clearly extremely hazardous if not handled appropriately, and the management of waste is a long-term commitment. We must face up to that commitment in a considered and robust manner and that is what we are doing, which is why we continue to invest the resources necessary to deliver practicable, sustainable solutions that will stand the test of time. Radioactive waste is produced from a range of military activities and is categorised in a range from very low-level waste to intermediate-level waste; that is the highest category that the Ministry of Defence holds.
	Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that the overwhelming proportion of defence radioactive waste is produced by the nuclear submarine and nuclear weapons programmes. There are also a number of other sources of waste, such as medical radioactive sources, depleted uranium ammunition and contaminated land. Our policies, processes and plans address the requirements for managing all categories of waste, whatever the source. The MOD is not alone in needing to manage radioactive waste and used fuel, and defence material is managed in a similar way to civil material. The MOD's current and future liabilities amount to less than 5 per cent. of the total UK waste inventory, by activity and by volume, so we play an active role in working with the UK nuclear industry, other Government Departments and regulators to deliver long-term waste management solutions for the UK as a whole.
	It is not in either the MOD's or the UK's interests to adopt solutions that diverge from those being developed by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which is why we are working closely with it to produce a coherent and optimal strategy to meet our waste management policy. The decommissioning and disposal of nuclear submarines, in particular the management of the radioactive waste generated by that process, is a key area of work for the MOD at this time.
	In July last year, the MOD signed a contract for the delivery of new facilities at Her Majesty's naval base Devonport for defuelling and de-equipping submarines in preparation for their afloat storage. That £153 million contract is scheduled to deliver in 2012, and will enable the removal of more than 99 per cent. of the radioactive material from submarines, in a way that meets the highest modern safety standards. That material will then be placed in medium-term storage to a standard that is at least as high as that for civil nuclear waste, and its storage will be subject to statutory safety regulation by the Health and Safety Executive. Low-level waste from operational submarines is disposed of at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority site near Drigg. The remaining radioactivity after defuelling is secured within the reactor compartments of submarines as they are maintained in afloat storage at Devonport and at Rosyth dockyard.
	The ISOLUS—interim storage of laid-up submarines—project was established by the MOD in 2000 to deliver a sustainable solution for the interim storage of nuclear submarines' intermediate-level radioactive waste over the next 60 years. That is a complex matter, whereby we must consider a range of factors including, as I have mentioned, the need to take account of broader UK policy. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management recommended in 2006 that a programme of robust, safe and secure long-term interim storage of intermediate-level waste was required. The ISOLUS project has taken the Committee's recommendations into account and, since its report was published, the project has been able to take forward technical and siting issues. The present intention is to store intermediate-level waste on land and to end the current practice of afloat storage. Detailed options for land storage are being considered in a technical options study that is expected to be completed by the end of this year.
	Radioactive waste is generated and stored at a number of locations around the UK. I would like to reassure the House that when it is necessary for material to be moved between the sites, safety and security remain paramount at all times. Indeed, safety and security are paramount across all aspects of the management of radioactive waste, and the MOD is committed to complying with national policies in this area. Defence activities, whether conducted directly by the MOD or by contractors, are subject to safety and environmental legislation, where it is applicable, and where such legislation does not apply to the MOD we introduce standards and management arrangements that are, so far as reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by legislation.
	The nuclear sector is, as one would expect, highly regulated. The bulk of the MOD's activities relating to radioactive waste management fall under the jurisdiction of statutory regulators—the HSE, including the nuclear installations inspectorate, the Environment Agency, in England, or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Where such activities are not subject to statutory regulation, the MOD regulator, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator, applies an equivalent regime, and in doing so works closely with the statutory regulators.
	I recognise that there is a great public interest in the MOD's management of radioactive waste and we are committed to a policy of openness and transparency so far as is possible, given the demands of national security. Through measures such as the publication on the internet last year of the MOD's radioactive waste disposal policy, we aim to demonstrate that the MOD is a responsible nuclear operator and owner. Project ISOLUS, for example, has already undertaken two major public consultation exercises and has established the ISOLUS advisory group, which has a broad membership and holds public meetings, to provide independent scrutiny of the project. We will continue to engage with interested parties throughout the decision-making process.
	I am pleased to have been able to respond to the hon. Gentleman on this important issue, and would like to reaffirm the MOD's commitment to maintaining the highest standards of safety and security, through the effective management of radioactive waste, both now and in the future.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to  Twelve o'clock.